Could science convince you that the shooter was not ethically responsible for his actions?

[Moostache]

79. Diagnosing and TREATING dangerous conditions might be a good start at protection...

Because free and easy access to guns, modifications and ammunition sure as shit does not seem to be making public events any "safer" from random idiots....our culture of not treating mental illness as a true disease and instead perpetuating the stereo-type of the "lone nut", the "crazed gunman", the "disturbed individual" in place of actual mental health care is at the heart of the whole problem.

I hate guns. Never owned one, never will. The idea of fetish-izing an instrument of mass death is profoundly disturbing to me. But I understand the minds of legitimate gun owners and responsible hunters and their rights...sadly, the NRA's zero tolerance policy of ANY kind of legislation to prevent ANY kind of gun ownership (shit, they won't even allow the individuals on the no-fly list to be prevented from owning guns...that should make anyone's blood run cold).

WE spend all of our money and attention and energy on the trivial and inconsequential because that is the way the owners want it...and its NEVER going to change without violent rebellion and overthrow of the monied interests ruining (no typo...there IS no one
'running' this country at the moment, our "driver" has his foot on the gas, his head out the window and is eating bugs as we careen out of control) this nation. Until they fear ALL of the people to the same degree that they fear black penises, we are ALL at risk of being disposed of by their actions and greed.

More money for mental health options is a small step in the right direction, but until and unless we change the zeitgeist of the age from capitalism and greed to sustainable living and shared prosperity, we will continue to get exactly what we have been getting for decades now...shared misery and grief.