After a mass shooting such as the atrocious crime committed in Parkland, Florida yesterday, a familiar process begins in the media, both mass and social, and in politics. There are expressions of outrage at the nature of the crime and the fact that it wasn’t prevented, and there are expressions of sadness at the lives lost, and of support and sympathy for the families of those killed, and for those injured in the attacks. This is as it should be. When this goes away it will be because we have grown so used two such attacks that they no longer make an impression on us.

There is also a desperate search for motives and for answers to why and how a crime of this kind can happen. We dig into the public presences of the perpetrator, especially on social media, we investigate his past (or possibly her past, though I am not aware of a mass shooting carried out by a female), we interview friends, family, associates, and even neighbors or casual acquaintances.

Sometimes, as was the case with Nikolas Cruz, the shooter in yesterday’s attack, we discover issues that could indicate a motive, and that could have been warning signs if anyone had been paying attention. At other times no such things are uncovered. The motives of Stephen Paddock, the man who fired over a thousand rounds into a crowd at a concert in Las Vegas, still remain a mystery.

The discussion of motives and for answers to how such a horrible thing could happen is framed within the larger debate on how we prevent such a thing from happening again. The political debate often centers around two issues: mental health and gun-control.

Let’s be honest, the proliferation of guns in our society is the real issue that needs to be addressed. The issue of mental health is a distraction. I am not saying that we don’t need effective mental health strategies and policies to prevent violent behavior, I am just saying that this will not have a significant impact on death tolls due to gun violence.

I am not anti-guns. I have no interest in taking away the guns of hunters, people who need them for protection, or even those for whom shooting is a hobby. Shooting is an Olympic sport, after all. As a young man, I went to shooting ranges with the Boy Scouts and even my high school class. I’ve only ever shot at paper targets, but I enjoyed it. It takes great skill to be a good marksman. I can think of situations in which I might want to purchase and keep a weapon in my home. I occasionally have fantasies about moving to the wilderness and living off the grid. I’m fairly certain I would never actually do such a thing, but if I did I would probably want a rifle in the house for hunting and possibly to keep me safe. Similarly, if I found myself living in the situation where law and order had completely broken down and violence was rampant, I might want a gun for self-protection.

Nonetheless, I strongly believe that sensible gun laws are necessary, and that such laws do not violate the second amendment. Constitutional rights are not absolute. We deny virtually all of them to those who are incarcerated of people who are certifiably insane. We also allow people to be prosecuted if people are killed in a stampede caused by them yelling “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. We allow civil suits for cases of libel or slander, and we require permits for large assemblies in public places, even though free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble are all enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It can be more difficult to buy or sell a motor vehicle or piece of industrial equipment than it is to buy and sell guns.

Moreover, I do not believe the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual’s right to own rocket launchers, automatic weapons, and armor piercing bullets. Moreover, the right to bear arms is not the same as the right to build up massive private arsenals. There is a lot that can be done without infringing on the Second Amendment as stated in the Bill of Rights.

The quality and availability of mental health treatment in the United States is an issue that needs to be addressed. It would go a long way to resolving issues like the opioid epidemic, domestic violence, suicide rates, and more. I am very much in favor of improving and expanding access to mental health treatment in the United States. I am also in favor of expanding and supporting research into psychological and neurological illnesses. There are many strong reasons for these things, and in the long run they might even have some impact on gun violence. But that impact will not be significant.

To state the obvious, a homicidal maniac bent on taking as many lives as possible will have much more success with an automatic weapon than he will with fists, rocks, shovels, axes, baseball bats, knives, swords, spears, arrows, etc.  Even a homicidal maniac with a gun is less dangerous than a homicidal maniac with an automatic weapon. My point is that we do not need to ban any and all guns in order to reduce gun violence. There is a perception that guns are totally banned in Europe, and that is why most European countries have lower murder rates. In fact, that is not the case.  Most countries ban civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, and tough restrictions of semi-automatic weapons.  Other types of weapons simply have to be registered.
The act of Lovegra holds buy viagra in canada up for roughly 4-6 hour. Yes, foea.org buy tadalafil in australia 100mg online is said to be an enormously common disorder which has afflicted nearly 10 % of the male population. This ingredient is a PDE 5 inhibitor, thus, it works to inhibit the PDE 5 enzymes (a cause of ED) and enhancing the cyclic australia viagra buy GMP (erection providing enzyme). The viagra no prescription uk higher your cholesterol levels are, the greater the risk of impotence or loss of libido.
Can you think of a good reason for a civilian to possess an automatic weapon?  I can’t.  As for the ridiculous cliché that sometimes it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun, that is true, but those good guys can be law enforcement officers.  There are cases in which off duty soldiers, retired police officers, or even private citizens have stopped would be shooters, but I don’t think it has ever been done with an assault rifle.  Most people just don’t carry those around.

So let’s look at some simple measures like gun registration, closing the “gun show loophole,” banning automatic weapons, etc.

Requiring permits and registration of guns does not equate to taking away guns.  I am licensed to drive, and I am required to register my vehicle, yet I have no fears about my car being randomly taken.  If my license to drive is taken away, or my car impounded, it will be through legal means.  More importantly, if a car deliberately or accidentally runs someone down, it can be traced back to the licensed owner who will then either be charged with the crime, or provide evidence that someone else had the vehicle at the time, thus providing law enforcement a good lead.

Don’t buy into the slippery slope argument.  We should also want to keep military grade assault weapons off the street, but that doesn’t mean that they will  not be coming for the rifles you use to hunt, the handguns you keep “for protection”, and certainly not the BB guns 22-guage rifles your father gave you.

Diverting the attention to mental health keeps us from addressing the real causes of gun violence.  It also stigmatizes mental illness and could, potentially, give the government and excuse to meddle in our private lives. That is the real slippery slope. Overt manifestations of anger, even when legitimately piqued by injustice, has always been used by authoritarian governments to lock people away psychiatric institutions. Instead of jailing opponents as political prisoners, they can say they are sending psychologically ill people for treatment.  Remember that until 1987 homosexuality was listed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, and openly gay people have been hospitalized for treatment.

So let’s keep our focus on the real issues.