I am not a gun owner or proponent. But we can’t wait for a constitutional amendment. It’s not about guns, it’s about getting to the root causes that make one want to harm others. Mental illness is the needs to be addressed.
The Bland case seems extremely important, as was the Michael Brown case. A cop killed at a traffic stop should be just as important to show the dangers of a cop just doing his job.
Of course it is about mental illness, and the side issue of drug abuse (self-medication).
How does a “drifter” get a gun? They are that available?
@rhandco, I agree that the Bland case is important. I hope these recent events don’t overshadow it.
“A cop killed at a traffic stop should be just as important to show the dangers of a cop just doing his job.”
Are there people who don’t realize being a cop is dangerous?
Plenty of press on the cop killing. A quick google search shows:
https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=policeman+shot+after+traffic+stop+in+CA&start=0
I almost feel that Sgt. Lunger’s death - walking to a vehicle at a traffic stop on a highway, and the driver shot and killed him with no warning - is not being publicized because the press doesn’t want to “antagonize cops” and make them “more afraid”. Should every cop have his gun drawn when approaching a vehicle at a traffic stop?
The Bland case is quite a puzzlement and certainly mental health is in the picture as well.
"is not being publicized because the press doesn’t want to “antagonize cops”
https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=policeman+shot+after+traffic+stop+in+CA&start=0
When I heard one of the victims was a 21 year old female, I felt physically ill. I have a 21 y/o daughter, and I just cannot imagine the pain of losing her like that. All victims are equally precious, of course, but that one hit close to home for me. 
The shooter was apparently turned down for a gun at some point when he lived in Alabama. Haven’t heard how he got the one he used.
It’s sad to think we need metal detectors everywhere but maybe we do.
As for mental health, I don’t want it to detract from the fact that this man was a terrorist. A white man, tea party member, likely disturbed - but still a terrorist.
This WILL keep happening, because as a society we’re unwilling (or unable, IDK) to deal with gun control.
Look, we had five and six year olds slaughtered in their classrooms – and nothing changed. In fact, we’re so USED to attacks they barely make headlines anymore – the only reason this is being covered is because it resembles the movie theater attack in Colorado 3 years ago.
Guns are America’s moral and political cancer.
^^ 13 high school students killed at Columbine (1999) - nothing changed.
32 college students killed at Virginia Tech (2007) - a new law was passed, I think, to toughen background checks.
12 moviegoers killed in Aurora (2012) - nothing changed
26 (?) children and teachers killed in a school at Sandy Hook (2012) - nothing changed
9 prayer-group-attendees killed in a church in Charleston - nothing much has changed. (Oh, wait. The Confederate battle flag was removed from the state capital, which was awesome and long-overdue. But gun laws? Nothing has changed.)
Nope, nothing has changed because apparently Americans have decided that this is the acceptable price we pay for the right to bear arms.
And not only can we not have a modicum of common sense gun control (still allowing guns for responsible hunters and self-protection) but there has been a proliferation of guns across the country.
Like this man who died of apparently natural causes?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-family-id-s-dead-man-with-cache-of-1-200-guns-20150722-story.html
I am in favor of stricter gun control, but to me the essential problem is not the physical object itself, it is the mindset that drives people to THINK that they need it in the first place, which the vast majority don’t. And then to think that using it to threaten or kill is an acceptable reaction to stress. The glorification of violence–and the violent-- in our society is getting worse and worse. That is the real problem.
Yes, I’m sure that gun control (perhaps confiscation of all guns?) would solve the problem. I’m sure all mass shooters are sane citizens who would by all means follow the law. If I recall correctly, it’s against the law to kill someone except maybe in self defense. That doesn’t seem to stop people from killing other people, however. But it’s against the law, so how can it happen? Scratching my head here…
There is a current law that being broken all the time. The 21 y o who killed 9 at the church was NOT allowed to have a gun by a CURRENT law. Most killers are NOT allowed to have a gun by the current law. They either have previous convictions or “drug possession” claim or something like this, most of them ARE PROHIBITTED to have a gun. So, does the current law stops criminals from having a gun? And we do not hear about most killings anyway. Just try to listen to Detroit radio in a morning, most mornings they are talking about somebody else getting killed and NOT by law obeying citizens (I am soo shockingly surprised, who would think that the most killings are done by people with prior records, this cannot be true, it might be some kind of mistake, we do not hear about this fact, nope, we only hear about “politically” correct killings, the killings after which our enlightened leaders could blame lack of gun control, but nobody mentioned that in most cases the current law would have prevented the crime if it was in fact followed).
In Texas shooting by army shrink who is still very much alive himself, all the people who were there mentioned, that the number of killed would be much lower if they had guns to stop the killer. But even after 13 died, we do not hear this statement, nobody is brave to declare that when good people are NOT armed than many of them are simply an easy target and criminals very well know about that.
The houses with “security” signs are not robbed as frequently as the houses that do not have security. Gun is security in the arms of good people, if that army shrink knew that others had guns, would he shoot in a first place?
Political correctness is not going to solve this issue. Getting rid of criminals roaming the streets and following the current laws that are already implemented will. But could you ask a sick and criminal brain to follow any law? They will simply laugh into your face. So, they will mysteriously start follow a new stricter law? OK, maybe in somebody’s politically correct speeches they will. In reality, they will obtain any guns they wish, somewhere, black market or whatever. Does drug law prevents drug users from buying?
He was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital in 2008 for bi-polar and/or other mental disorders. One wonders why he was ever released.
There is (sometimes justifiably) a rush to look to mental illness as a cause for many mass murders like this one. Sometimes, though, the cause is just plain evil. No mental illness, just a desire to hurt and kill. No law in the land can guard against that, and it’s a scary thing to realize.
However, actual violent crime rates have been going down since the early 1990s:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (rates per 100,000 people at the bottom)
It may be that, with a lower “background” rate of violent crime, any specific incident now gets more attention. But it is also likely that the level perception and fear of violent crime lags the actual level of violent crime. Violent crime now is at a level similar to the early 1970s, but people are much more fearful of violent crime now (with recent memory of the high-crime 1990s) than in the early 1970s (with recent memory of the low-crime 1950s-1960s).
Other countries with stricter gun laws have mentally ill people, but they don’t have as many mass murders. The difference is the availability of guns here. Yes, we need to do more to help mentally ill people who have the potential to become violent, but it is disingenuous to say that doing so would solve our mass homicide problem. Guns are clearly a problem.
It is grossly immoral to continue to build a hedge around a right that causes so much harm to other people. Right to bear arms? Yes. Right to a well-regulated militia? Yes. Right to amass multiple weapons and sell them freely to whomever wants to pay? No.