It seems the only way to keep the guns out of the hands of mass shooters is more scrutiny and making it more difficult for unhinged people to get a gun.
i think this is totally incorrect, and ultimately is the reason why gun regulation or control of any kind is a futile effort in the US, and while he didn't mean to bill o'rielly hit the nail perfectly on the head when he said "a mass shooting now and then is the price we pay for freedom."
the only way to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters is to stop having guns, or at least for guns to become incredibly scarce.
it worked quite well for australia, BUT that's a giant island in the middle of nowhere with a low population density that had the cultural zeitgeist to do it.
that would never work in america, not only due to the culture here but due to smuggling - even if you just up and banned guns we'd just get a shitload of them coming in from mexico, so it wouldn't make any practical difference.
so, the reality is, mass shootings is the price we pay for our gun obsessed culture and refusal to limit manufacturing or access to firearms.
this always has been and always will be a function of our society, and when it happens conversation is pointless because nothing practical will ever be done (or in fact could be done), so it's best to just accept this and move on with your life, much like how people just accept traffic accident deaths as part of the general background noise of a functioning civilization.
side note: this is one of those things that really pisses me off about US politics: that the caricature that republicans present about liberals actually paints a picture of a more effective progressive than the democrats embody.
that is no "take your guns away" faction of any political group in the US, and yet that's the only option that would have any chance at a long term impact on the incidence of mass shootings.
