(Posted as a new diary because the diary where I originally mentioned the topic was deleted)
As much as I hate to admit it, extremely strict gun control probably would reduce the frequency of mass shootings. I say this as someone who is strongly opposed to virtually all gun control. Just as monitoring all phone calls and e-mails would prevent a lot of crime, I accept that taking guns away from people would also prevent a lot of crime. But I don't support gun confiscation any more than I support a pervasive surveillance society.
What I DO support is getting to the bottom of these violent crimes.
Crime has always existed, but mass shootings haven't always existed. High-capacity rapid-fire weapons are a recent invention, but the availability of those weapons doesn't correspond with the outbreak of mass shootings. Until the mid-1930s, virtually anyone could purchase a fully automatic machine gun with no background check and no registration. Yet the idea of someone shooting up a school in 1929 would have been unheard of.
Gun control can prevent some types of mass shootings, but it ends up being a band-aid solution. It doesn't address the root cause of these violent acts. It may be a good short-term solution, but there is clearly another level that needs to be explored.
Other than the expiration of the assault weapons ban, gun control has become stricter every decade since the 1930s. Yet mass shootings still tend to be on the rise. What's changed in the last 70 years? Why didn't these shootings occur when machine guns were legal and easily available? Why are they happening today when background checks and gun registration are mandatory? (Please don't say that gun control causes an increase in crime. That's just silly.)
Guns make it easier for a disturbed person to go on a rampage. But what causes them to go on the rampage in the first place? Why are they doing it now more than ever? Even during the Great Depression, no one was shooting up schools.
Most importantly, how do we fix this?