Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My impression of the background check required to buy a firearm is that it spits out a yes or no result based solely on whether the subject has been convicted of a felony.

That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.

 Zakiriel wrote:

The United States has dismantled so much of its former mental health system because of abuses of care, but we clearly are not doing enough to help manage and get support for people with these different mental and behavioral health needs.

It isn't just the mental health system. One of the quickest ways to disqualify yourself from employment is by explaining a period of unemployment by way of mental health issues which, of course, encourages people to avoid treatment.

 AustonT wrote:
That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.

Are you saying gun store employees are fed information by this system upon which to make their own judgment calls?

Talking with my dad, who has worked at a gun store here in VA for over a decade now, his understanding is that if a background check to purchase a firearm is run for a person who has been convicted of a felony, a warrant is automatically issued for that person's arrest. I don't claim any first-hand knowledge of this.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.

Are you saying gun store employees are fed information by this system upon which to make their own judgment calls?

Talking with my dad, who has worked at a gun store here in VA for over a decade now, his understanding is that if a background check to purchase a firearm is run for a person who has been convicted of a felony, a warrant is automatically issued for that person's arrest. I don't claim any first-hand knowledge of this.

I believe he's saying that felony convictions are almost certain to red flag a NICS check, while other things that should sometimes do not, often due to the fact that they were never reported properly.

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.

Are you saying gun store employees are fed information by this system upon which to make their own judgment calls?

Talking with my dad, who has worked at a gun store here in VA for over a decade now, his understanding is that if a background check to purchase a firearm is run for a person who has been convicted of a felony, a warrant is automatically issued for that person's arrest. I don't claim any first-hand knowledge of this.

No the NICS gives a clear yes/no. The variable is WHAT causes that yes or no. There's a lot of errors and uneven reporting state to state. Guys with convictions for spousal abuse can walk out with a wheel barrel ful of guns, but a vet that has trouble sleeping is denied. Obviously I made those up, but you get the idea.

Anyone that uses thier real name and address, has a felony conviction, and tries to buy a gun: deserves what they get.

A sig, a glock, and a Cheap bushmaster AR? Was the shooter's mother a /k/ lurker?

Mm, not sure I'm trying to make fun of the situation. I guess it's a defense mechanism.

The United States has dismantled so much of its former mental health system because of abuses of care, but we clearly are not doing enough to help manage and get support for people with these different mental and behavioral health needs.

You mean lobotomies, asylums and fluffy white rooms? I'm not being funny. Psychology and mental illness were on par with voodoo up until at least the seventies. Hardly anyone knew anything, and they had no idea how to treat total nutjobs, so they locked them up and tried insane things on them, because, hey, they're nuts, who cares? There was hardly any procedure or method, just isolation. It was cruel and unusual punishment.

It was only recently that psychology and genetics came into the picture and actually provided the means for people to become well again. So, basically, this "mental health care system" has never existed. And it will continue to not exist, as long as it isn't profitable.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
You mean lobotomies, asylums and fluffy white rooms?

That last one doesn't sound so bad.

So it seems the Facebook page for Mass Effect - yes, the video game - has been getting hit with a bunch of spam because Ryan Lamza - the guy initially misidentified as the shooter, who turned out to be the brother of the shooter - had it in his "likes."



I don't see how we can fail to have a rational national discourse with such luminaries among us.

The stupidity of the average man still surprises you?

 n0t_u wrote:
The stupidity of the average man still surprises you?

It really does. I think it's getting worse.

 n0t_u wrote:
The stupidity of the average man still surprises you?

Well. Consider how stupid the average person is. Then remember that 50% of the population is even stupider.

dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's not the guns, or the "gun culture" that does this...

Its a disturbed individual did this.

It isn't just gun culture, that's true, but there is definitely a cultural component to the high rate of violent crime in the US (with or without guns), but that's for another thread.

Well actually, from what I think I know the violent crime rate in America and Canada is similar, it's just the weapon of choice is the significant difference when it comes to mortality rates. When you're unskilled with its use a knife or a bat is somewhat hard to kill someone with given the capabilities of modern medicine. For instance, pretty much all of the gang related violence in the city I lived near when growing up was committed with knucks, knives, and a variety of blunt objects. The amount of people actually killed was relatively low, but the assault rate was high. Whereas in the states said violence would almost always be conducted with firearms.

For some reason few Canadians are willing to shoot other people, stab someone yes, beat someone rather severely yes, but shoot someone no.

Unless of course you live in Toronto or Vancouver.

AustonT wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.

Bull Gak

Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.

When they do the NICS are not all reported mental health issues included in it? I thought they were. Obviously that doesn't stop a person who has never seen a shrink, but it's still there is it not?

Manchu wrote:Mental health background check? For what? Where? Is that a Canadian flag?

d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.

Bull Gak

Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.

I think maybe he is talking about states requiring that mental health issues be reported? I don't think that they are required to report in Oklahoma other than court ordered mental health actions.

Somewhat, more like all reported mental health issues are flagged when the person goes to buy the gun?

Maybe something will finally be done. Not that I have much hope of that.

Afterall you need your guns to fight off Cuba/the Government/commies.

Palindrome wrote:
Maybe something will finally be done. Not that I have much hope of that.

Afterall you need your guns to fight off Cuba/the Government/commies.

Really? I need mine to deal with the potentiality of some fethhead trying to do something like this when I'm around.

Honestly, I don't know why someone didn't just tell this guy he was in a gun-free school zone. According to the law, he would've had to take his firearms right back out of it.

Crablezworth wrote: Notice how knives are a far less efficient tool for killing people?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/12/2012121481220620325.html

I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.

Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.

Quote for truth!

Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
[September 18, 2001: The first of several letters laced with weaponized anthrax are delivered through the US postal system infecting 22 people, five of which die. No guns were used.

Shortly therafter, the USPS installed biological detection systems to prevent that from happening again.

 Breotan wrote:
[September 11, 2001: Terrorists flew three planes into building killing over 3000 people in total. No guns were used.

Among many other things, airplane cockpit doors were hardened to prevent such an attack from recurring.

 Breotan wrote:
[April 19, 1995: Timothy McVeigh drove a truck full of fertalizer into the basement of the Murrah Federal Building and detonated it killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns were used.

After this happened, large fertilizer purchases began being tracked, and suspicious ones investigated by the FBI.

 Breotan wrote:
[February 26, 1993: Ramzi Yousef and his fellow conspirators detonated a bomb in the World Trade Center killing six people and injuring more than one thousand. No guns were used.

After this happened, truck barriers were installed at sensitive locations to prevent this from recurring.


We can never stop madmen from engaging in mass murder, but we could at least try to find ways to prevent them from doing the same sort of thing over and over again. All of these major attacks were addressed in some way. We don't even try with gun violence, not in any meaningful way. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but we should stop pretending this isn't actually a problem.

Quote for truth! Why the hell don't you americans do ANYTHING to prevent further shootigs?

whembly wrote:It's not the guns, or the "gun culture" that does this...

Its a disturbed individual did this.

Dude! Sure it's the crazy guys fault.... but WHY do you keep arguing against denying crazy guys access to guns? Crazy guy + guns = killing spree. A cray guy without a gun is much less dangerous. So it IS partly the gun culture that does it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Quark wrote:
So you're going back at least 11 years to match what's happened twice in the past few months.

It's not about making killing go away - that's impossible. But to say we can't reduce it is disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst. Some of these people will find a way to kill, but it won't be as efficient at the job. Others are not so pre-planned, and getting past the deadly heat of the moment is much harder with a gun involved.

How would the incident with the Chiefs player have panned out if he had no gun?

How many people were killed by drunk drivers in the past few months? I say we ban alcohol or limit how many bottles someone can buy in a set time span.

Oh come on! That is the weakest argument I've heard so far, dude. "Oh look something else is also kiling people, so let's just ignore this here" what the.... ,dude?

 MrMerlin wrote:

Dude! Sure it's the crazy guys fault.... but WHY do you keep arguing against denying crazy guys access to guns? Crazy guy + guns = killing spree. A cray guy without a gun is much less dangerous. So it IS partly the gun culture that does it!

No one is arguing against that. In point of fact, it's already illegal to sell a "crazy guy" a gun.

Incidentally, prior to this tragedy, two of the top five deadliest school shootings had taken place in Germany. Now it's one.

 Seaward wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:

Dude! Sure it's the crazy guys fault.... but WHY do you keep arguing against denying crazy guys access to guns? Crazy guy + guns = killing spree. A cray guy without a gun is much less dangerous. So it IS partly the gun culture that does it!

No one is arguing against that. In point of fact, it's already illegal to sell a "crazy guy" a gun.

Incidentally, prior to this tragedy, two of the top five deadliest school shootings had taken place in Germany. Now it's one.

Well, SOME people are agruing against it.

In Germany? When and where? Only one comes to mind, a while back, with 11 death, not 27.... and that guy got his gun by chance, becuase his father had left the gun safe open (which is very unlikeley to cause another killing spree, because father with guns safes are quite rare here compared to the US)

 Iron Dragon wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
The stupidity of the average man still surprises you?

Well. Consider how stupid the average person is. Then remember that 50% of the population is even stupider.

...that's bloody depressing.

Here in Colorado we do an NICS and CIB (State level LEA) background check, if there's anything in your past that would flag a "yes" on an ATF Form 4 (for example a misdemeanor domestic violence charge) you will not be cleared to purchase. I do not think there's anything about mental health in there though. I'm not even sure how you could reliably set up and enforce such a system.

Since some people seem slightly confused about how guns work here in the United States here's a brief run down, there's some variation from state to state but this is a good general idea.
Magazine Capacity Limits: 5 rounds for hunting, all weapons. (There's some detail stuff in that limit, but it's not important) No other restrictions except in California, New York and a few others.
Weapons Restrictions:
Title 1 weapons: Rifles, Shotguns and pistols within certain restrictions (length, action type): Free to purchase, some restrictions in certain states (NY, CA, etc)
Title 2 weapons (NFA weapons): categorized into Silencers, Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS), Any Other Weapon (AOW, a catch all category), Machineguns (Any full auto, commonly referred to as "Class III"), and Destructive Devices (things that go boom like very high cal rifles, think 20mm, Class VI)

Purchase of all Title 2 weapons are regulated and controlled with manufacturers and dealers alike having to seek special licensing to sell the various types and classes of NFA weapons. This is done by applying for a Federal Firearms License in various grades. Certain grades of FFL require you to register as a Special Occupational Taxpayer and are subject to greater scrutiny. There's a variety of other requirements but it's not a walk in the park to pick up your FFL, especially once you get into Special Occupational Taxpayer territory. Hopefully this will help debunk the popular delusion that you can pop into the local gas station and pick up a coke and a revolver with your gas.

For the purchaser of an NFA weapon there's a big pile of paperwork to go through, and a $200 tax stamp to pay on top of the cost of the weapon. For full auto weapons this is usually many thousands of dollars. The average owner of full auto weapons in the United States has an income well into the six figure range. To my knowledge a legally owned full auto weapon has never been involved in a crime since the passing of the '68 Gun Control Act which is where limitations on full auto weapons in civilian hands started to be put into place. Mostly because again as I said, these guys are loaded. Why bother committing crimes? Especially with your $20,000 machine gun?

Background Checks: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system (aka the NICS which has been mentioned previously) it has it's flaws but it is there and people do get denied. Some states have extra background checks and purchase requirements depending.

Concealed Carry:
This is very much state dependent but it boils down into the following categories.
Constitutional or "Vermont" style carry: Open or Concealed carry of a firearm is permitted to all people who can legally own a firearm over the age of 21. Only three states, Alaska, Arizona and obviously Vermont, have this style of carry law.
"Shall Issue" - The majority of states have something along these lines. You jump through some hoops and do some background checks with your local Sheriff and you get your permit in the mail within a month or two. All you have to do is pass the background checks and in most cases show proof of firearms training. Usually a course specifically for concealed carry.
Extra Bullgak - Varies by the state but extra hoops to jump through.
No carry - I believe the last bastion of this was Illinois and their law was recently struck down as unconstitutional (as we can see from Chicago it didn't do gak for them any way)

Open Carry:
I'll just turn you lot over to a map for this one:
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=103

Yellow and orange mean that you can legally open carry a handgun or other weapon without a permit. (Rule of three usually applies, by which I mean it has to be clear you're armed when viewing at least three sides of your body)
Green means you need a permit, usually the same one you get to conceal carry
Red is no open carry
Grey is rural carry (So if you're out in the back woods, go for it but if you come to town put up your gun)

There's some other great maps on the site along with solid general information. I'm particularly proud of my home state of Colorado specifically authorizing concealed carry on college campuses.

I think that covers pretty much everything that's come up in the thread...

For some machine gun examples just for funsies in case you guys think I'm talking out my arse about how much a machine gun costs to own in the United States, and why we don't have to worry about their owners.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=321083882

This lovely M249 SAW is going for at least 20k and is NOT civilian legal. Now I couldn't find another M249 that was civilian legal for easy comparison, so this M60 will have to do.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=321152489

Yours for only 45k folks!

Submachine gun more your style?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=320572782

A lovely little H&K MP-5 again around the 20k range, quite the bargain!

So yeah, not particularly worried about bad guys, whether disturbed nut jobs or common street thugs getting a hold of legal automatic weapons in the United States. They couldn't pass the credit check.

On a side note any one who's ever flipped their gak over "silencers" needs to stop watching so many spy movies.

 MrMerlin wrote:
In Germany? When and where? Only one comes to mind, a while back, with 11 death, not 27.... and that guy got his gun by chance, becuase his father had left the gun safe open (which is very unlikeley to cause another killing spree, because father with guns safes are quite rare here compared to the US)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

Now that the media has properly identified the shooter (hopefully his brother gets a nice lawsuit out of that) the Twitterati have come out and seem to back the rumored statement from Ryan Lanza that his brother (the shooter) Adam had some mental issues.

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/14/burn-in-hell-neighbors-classmates-of-adam-lanza-speak-out-i-cant-say-im-surprised/

In other fun news, thanks to Ryan being a fan of the Mass Effect games Jack Thompson and thousands of idiots like him jumped the gun and blamed Mass Effect, a relatively harmless Sci-Fi shooter/RPG series for the tragedy in Connecticut.

http://kotaku.com/5968683/mob-blames-mass-effect-for-school-shooting-is-embarrassingly-wrong/gallery/1?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Gotta love the mob mentality right?

Edit: I found this elsewhere, and I'd really like these questions answered myself.


Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)

Repeating firearms have existed for over 150 years – the Colt revolver for example.

Why didn’t those kinds of massacres occur 150… 120.. 100 years ago?

Why didn’t these tragedies occur back when select fire – fully automatic weaponry were easily available?

Why do these tragedies almost always occur in “Gun-Free” zones – where the law-abiding are denied the right of self-defense? (You can ignore this one, that answer should be blatantly obvious)

Don't worry America I'm sure the NRA will put it all into perspective by poitning out that you are more likely to be run down by a car, choke on a peanut or be hit by a falling metorite than be killled at school by a lunatic. Bet that will make every parent sleep better at night!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Why do these tragedies almost always occur in “Gun-Free” zones – where the law-abiding are denied the right of self-defense? (You can ignore this one, that answer should be blatantly obvious)

So one of the 5 year olds would have pulled out their side-arm and taken down the shooter?
If there are any meaningful answers to the questions you're asking, they probably aren't the one's you are gleefully fishing for.

Also, smug magicians probably aren't your best source of social commentary.

 plastictrees wrote:
So one of the 5 year olds would have pulled out their side-arm and taken down the shooter?
If there are any meaningful answers to the questions you're asking, they probably aren't the one's you are gleefully fishing for.

Also, smug magicians probably aren't your best source of social commentary.

I believe the implication was that one of the presumably adult teachers could have done so.

Disturbed individuals or groups will find a way to satisfy their urges.

Legal firearms in the US are not going to go away. Would restrictions have stopped this massacre? probably. Would this individual have done something else? maybe.


Illegal firearms and weapons will always be available to those with the will to supply and the will to acquire them.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Legal firearms in the US are not going to go away. Would restrictions have stopped this massacre? probably.

It's been determined that this is incorrect actually. The shooter did not purchase his weapons himself.

 Seaward wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
So one of the 5 year olds would have pulled out their side-arm and taken down the shooter?
If there are any meaningful answers to the questions you're asking, they probably aren't the one's you are gleefully fishing for.

Also, smug magicians probably aren't your best source of social commentary.

I believe the implication was that one of the presumably adult teachers could have done so.

Or any other adult at any other of the shootings... the vast majority of which occur at gun free zones. The answer to that question is simply that bad guys like targets who can't fight back.

As to the rest, I know it's going to break your smug canadian heart but I'm not fishing for answers and I don't have any for those particular ones. When my grandpa was a kid his school had a marksmanship team and they practiced after school just like any other sport, and brought their rifles from home, no killing sprees. You could order an Anti-Tank rifle in a mail order catalog. Getting a machine gun, which as we just saw cost tens of thousands of dollars now required, instead of a tax stamp and background check along with a special permit, some postage stamps and a couple hundred bucks depending on what one was buying. Still no deranged lunatics running off with a BAR and shooting up a train, bus, diner or high school.

So yes I'd like a meaningful answer if it does in fact exist. What's changed? What's the root of all of this? Or more simply put, why? These rampages are symptoms, what is the disease?

But then I suppose I'm asking internet commentators for social commentary, which has to at least be a step down from magicians

We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here? The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world. How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage? I'm not really seeing the argument that the general availability and culture of guns in the US has no bearing on these incidents. If we were talking one or two in isolation, then maybe but there has been far too many of these to deny correlation, surely?

The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli). How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?

 filbert wrote:
We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here? The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world. How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage? I'm not really seeing the argument that the general availability and culture of guns in the US has no bearing on these incidents. If we were talking one or two in isolation, then maybe but there has been far too many of these to deny correlation, surely?

The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli). How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?

What do you propose we do, exactly? Another ban on guns that look scary? Or maybe an outright confiscation of all private firearms? Millions and millions of guns in private ownership in the US; if you've come up with a system to get them all, rather than just get the ones people are willing to turn in, I'd love to hear it. I also somewhat suspect people intending to do violence with their gun might just ignore demands from the government to get rid of it, just as they tend to ignore "Gun Free Zone" laws.

Criminal background checks prior to purchase already exist. It is already illegal for someone judged mentally unstable to purchase a firearm. In fact, this guy violated over twenty state and federal laws before he pulled the trigger the first time; what five or six more would you like to tack on that you think would have stopped him?

 Seaward wrote:

 filbert wrote:
We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here? The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world. How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage? I'm not really seeing the argument that the general availability and culture of guns in the US has no bearing on these incidents. If we were talking one or two in isolation, then maybe but there has been far too many of these to deny correlation, surely?

The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli). How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?

What do you propose we do, exactly? Another ban on guns that look scary? Or maybe an outright confiscation of all private firearms? Millions and millions of guns in private ownership in the US; if you've come up with a system to get them all, rather than just get the ones people are willing to turn in, I'd love to hear it. I also somewhat suspect people intending to do violence with their gun might just ignore demands from the government to get rid of it, just as they tend to ignore "Gun Free Zone" laws.

Criminal background checks prior to purchase already exist. It is already illegal for someone judged mentally unstable to purchase a firearm. In fact, this guy violated over twenty state and federal laws before he pulled the trigger the first time; what five or six more would you like to tack on that you think would have stopped him?

So the solution is apathy because we can't think of a way to tackle it? I don't know the answer but then again, I'm not paid the money to think of it. In all reality, it is too late for the US to adopt any form of law banning gun ownership - the guns are already in circulation and aren't coming back. What is really needed is an entire cultural shift whereby large volumes and sections of American society reject gun ownership and hand in/destroy their weapons and start attaching a cultural stigma to guns in much the same way as smoking has been. Will this happen anytime soon? Nope.

But I would think it would be better to at least try and do something rather than shrug shoulders and wring hands every time something like this happens.

 filbert wrote:
So the solution is apathy because we can't think of a way to tackle it? I don't know the answer but then again, I'm not paid the money to think of it. In all reality, it is too late for the US to adopt any form of law banning gun ownership - the guns are already in circulation and aren't coming back. What is really needed is an entire cultural shift whereby large volumes and sections of American society reject gun ownership and hand in/destroy their weapons and start attaching a cultural stigma to guns in much the same way as smoking has been. Will this happen anytime soon? Nope.

But I would think it would be better to at least try and do something rather than shrug shoulders and wring hands every time something like this happens.

It's interesting you say that, actually, as gun ownership has actually been going down over the past few decades as gun laws have been 'relaxed'. So, for the record, has violent crime. High-profile school shootings? On the rise.

Edit: I'll say this about apathy and solutions...these guys who want to pull off a massacre before killing themselves? They do it where the easy targets are. They do it where they're not going to wind up having to fight to pull it off. They want the spectacle and the outrage, and they're not going to get it trying to massacre people prepared to defend themselves. They're also not going to be dissuaded from murdering a bunch of people by the social stigma of guns. I'm fairly certain there's a social stigma tied to being a child-killer, too.