It's a little difficult to approach 'kitchen sink' articles like this that list off a few anecdotal high-profile shootings and seeks some generic kind of solution. At a minimum these shootings need to be categorized by whether they have some sort of connection with the heated political rhetoric being stirred by media outlets like FOX Propaganda TV, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other mentally unstable talk show hosts who routinely degrade people and encourage political violence in this country.

From that perspective, the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin and the shooting at a Democratic rally for Gabby Giffords in Tucson are most certainly stirred up by language on talk radio.

I'm not sure what the heck TVD means by saying 'evil' is the cause of these shootings as if some magical force took over the minds of the shooters. If that's the case, there is no solution because 'evil' can take control of anyone at anytime. If the author wants to use 'evil' as a possible cause, I'm not sure what's the point of even writing an article that asks 'What can be done?' The only answer is nothing.

The American public is taking steps to change this- very slowly, and almost unconsciously.

Since it peaked in 1977, the percentage of Americans who own guns has been steadily falling. In 1977, 54% of american households had guns- now, its around 30%.

And the average age of gun owners has been steadily increasing as well.

So even though overall gun numbers in the USA have been increasing, gun ownership has been consolidating into fewer and fewer owners with larger numbers of guns each, and those owners are getting older and older.

And as those gun owners age out of the population, this trend seems to be increasing- it is not unrealistic to expect that gun ownership, in 20 or 30 years, will be below 20% of the population.

I cant imagine we wont hit a tipping point in terms of how many guns each remaining gun owner will purchase, as well, meaning we will hit a point of declining sales, and lessened demand, and subsequent lessened numbers of gun shows, stores, and ammunition sales.

Currently, only about 5% of the american population actually hunts, and that, too, has been falling pretty drastically and rapidly.

Thanks for the early comments. Ries offers encouraging numbers re gun ownership. At the same time, though, those possessing firearms have
become ever more militant. It was interesting to see, in comments streams following the Aurora shootings, the number of persons taking the line that if citizens in the theater audience had been allowed to
have concealed firearms, one or more could have nailed the shooter immediately. This follows the traditional "If gun ownership is criminalized, only criminals will have guns" argument. These people live in a kind of vigilante dream world. Politicos need to recognize, as Ries points out, that they are noisy but dwindling in number.

Borkowskl forgot to mention George W. Bush in his comments this time around. The Tucson shootings clearly had no political or ideological
motivation. The shooter had an irrational grudge against Rep. Giffords
totally unrelated to politics. The Wisconsin shooting was undertaken by a person who had been on a Southern Poverty Law Center dangerous-person watchlist for a long period. He clearly was unable to distinguish between turban-wearing Sikhs, totally uninvolved in
Jihadist activity, and persons or groups he associated with it. He clearly did not possess a normal mental state.

Those who want to believe it continue to charge Limbaugh, Fox News, and others as tied to or inciting such violence. But there is nothng to support that assertion, anymore than there is anything to support
an assertion that MSNBC or Rachel Maddow are inciting violence from the opposite direction. It does no good to attribute all ills to
those whose political views one finds disagreeable.

There is indeed evil in the world and, at many times and places, it will express itself violently. We can only concern ourselves with those practical steps, such as toughly enforced firearms laws, which
can make an often marginal difference where we live.

Which mass shootings, exactly, are "violence from the opposite direction"?

Can you cite even ONE left wing treehugger anarchist who has shot numerous strangers?

Compared to this list, which only goes back to 2008, of literally dozens of right wing and neo-nazi shooters, bombers, and hate crimes.

This sort of argument is "false equivalency".

http://www.researchforprogress.us/terrorism/reporting-bias.html

Ries: No false equivalency. You probably remember as far back as the 1960s in which groups from the Left bombed and killed people and incited violence on a broad scale. These were not, I would add, groups from the democratic Left. There was a whole lot of violence incited and perpetrated by the non-democratic left from the turn of the 20th century through the 1930s. The most recent mass shooting, before those of the past five years, was at Columbine 13 years ago. That had nothing to do with politics or ideology. The recent shootings in the University District had nothing to do with them. These incidents generally have sprung from disturbed and deranged minds acting on impulses far removed from traditional politics.

Yes, there have been many hate crimes as well as other violent actions---including the Oklahoma City bombing-- committed by people on the right-wing, neo-Nazi, and survivalist fringes. But they are a million miles distant from the Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Al Sharptons, or Rachel Maddows who work within the general parameters of
two-party, electoral politics and who are harshly partisan but do not incite to violence.

History has taught us painfully that irrational, destructive violence
can flow from almost any political or ideological direction. Important not to impute villainy to one's adversaries and virtue to oneself.

I do, indeed, remember the 60's. Leftist bombers then killed around 5 people, in total. Compared to the list of right wing anti-government shootings and bombings, I dont see how anyone could call that "a broad scale".
Now, I suppose if you include Puerto Rican independence movements, you could add a few more deaths.

The simple numerical fact is that right wing shooters have killed many times more than left wing ones, and they do so consistently and regularly.

Of course, in addition to that, we have lots of apolitical or confused mentally ill people who routinely shoot people.

If you really believe the "most recent mass shooting was at Columbine", you need to do some more journalistic research- a mere 2 months after Columbine, 22 people were shot in a spree in Atlanta. 2 months later, 15 in Fort Worth. 2 months after that, 7 in Hawaii. Similar mass shootings have occurred every year since Columbine.

While murders in general have declined in the USA, and we currently have one of the lowest homicide rates since 1964, mass shootings have been consistent and steady.

While it is absolutely true that gun control wont stop crazy, there are methods to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people- every other civilized country manages to do it better than we do, on the whole. Of course there are incidents like Hobart in Australia, or the recent Norwegian shootings, but if you look at total deaths, we rank pretty low, worldwide, in effectively managing either mental illness or guns in the hands of the unstable.

Ted, you're sounding ridiculous.

"The Tucson shootings clearly had no political or ideological
motivation. The shooter had an irrational grudge against Rep. Giffords
totally unrelated to politics."

You must be the only person in America who believes that statement. This guy shot up a Democratic campaign rally. Nearly everyone in America knows of the hate speech that is a daily diet on right wing talk radio. Not on left wing media. On RIGHT WING media. This isn't related to George W. Bush or even political parties. People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are only interested in hate speech.

If you don't believe me Ted, watch this clip from Glenn Beck. I dare you to find anything from Rachel Maddow or MSNBC (your example) where she directs people to shoot Republicans in the head. You make all of these statements with nothing to back them up other than your anger. Give me an example where an MSNBC host says anything nearly violent as Glenn Beck. I dare you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ

"I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you."

What exactly is Van Dyk advocating here? Does he favor preventive detention for people who might commit violent crimes? Does he want to return to the good old days when they just came and took you away?

If he does, he has plenty of company. A movement to make it easier to involuntarily hospitalize the real or imagined "mentally ill" is gaining momentum in this state.

Under current law, a person cannot be forced into a psych institution without a clear indication that they intend to, or have, harmed themselves or others. That law needs "broadening," our mental health experts increasingly insist.

"Broadening" the law might save lives; of a great number of people detained against their will, a tiny fraction may be capable of mass killings.

Before we anoint a set of "broadened" rules, we need to consider who will decide which persons will be subject to involuntary treatment.

Psychiatrists or other mental health professionals sound authoritative. We tend to overlook the glaring inconsistency in psychiatric diagnosis. We also overlook the number of times when shrinks are just plain wrong.

So the public probably will support returning to mental health experts the unlimited power they used to hold. It's not unlike the reaction to 9/11: forget rights. Just keep us safe.

Mental health professional may start by detaining people who they think dangerous. But they'll branch out. Anyone who doesn't conform to the "accepted social norms"--a phrase that occurs repeatedly in the DSM--sooner or later will face the consequences of arbitrary, capricious, and frequently unfounded psychiatric decision-making.

Is that OK if it saves some lives? For most of society and virtually all of psychiatry, it is. After all, any devastating consequences to the real or suspected "mentally ill" are just collateral damage.

Oh, c'mon. We hear the same crap from idiots every time the whacko's running the U.S. government stage some mass shooting so they can bring the mental cases out to cry: "GUN CONTROL!"

Holmes was the patsy of the moment and the "white guy shooter of the week." BS.

Van Dyk rolls out the old fraud that the U.S. has the highest gun crime stats in the world and invariably cites Japan.

Well dummy, if the Japanese government opened its borders to millions of Mexicans and Muslims their gun use stats would go through the roof.

Extreme gun control works in Sweden, the rape capital of the "civilized world." Of course, it's the million Muslims doing all the raping.

Plus, it's the United States government, i.e. FBI, Homeland Security, or the local and state police who either do or stage most of the sensational murders so the servile American press and communist organizations like the nefarious and fraudulent Southern Poverty Law Center, can cry "GUN CONTROL!"

Corrupt governments need domestic mayhem as much as they need foreign wars. Bucks and power, baby! Bucks and power!

Now the domestic terrorists like Van Dyk and the racist Morris Dees, are fraudulently screaming for disarming the "white" American people.

Obama and Harder love the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood; New Black Panthers, and the Black Muslims can have all the weapons they want to protecty themselves from these gun-lovin' white folks.

Insanity and fraud!

TVD -

Here are 2 of your quotes:

"But they are a million miles distant from the Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Al Sharptons, or Rachel Maddows who work within the general parameters of two-party, electoral politics and who are harshly partisan but do not incite to violence."

"The Tucson shootings clearly had no political or ideological
motivation. The shooter had an irrational grudge against Rep. Giffords
totally unrelated to politics."

Perhaps you should read from one of your fellow authors on Crosscut. Read this article from Anthony Robinson. Here's what he has to say about the Tucson shootings.

"This effort to insulate politics and particular political figures from what happened in Tucson on Saturday (Jan. 8), and thus to avoid any responsibility, is really shameful."

http://crosscut.com/2011/01/10/congress/20528/Arizona-shootings-Speech-is-free-but-not-cheap/

To Richard Borkowski: I welcome your continuing comments and have no doubt that they are sincere. However, in the instance of the Tucson shootings, you just plain have your facts wrong.

Immediately after the shootings a number of people, so disposed, quickly concluded that they must have been inspired by conservative rhetoric by Sarah Palin and others. After a day or two, however, it became clear that they had nothing whatever to do with politics or ideology. The shooter came to Rep. Giffords' public meeting in Tucson, it turned out, because he felt that she somehow had not given him a satisfactory answer to an earlier question he had posed to her. Acting on instruction of a sick brain, he fired on Rep. Giffords and bystanders.

I wrote a piece in Crosscut at that time which summarized prior such shootings, examined the political culture in Arizona, and sorted out the specifics of this particular incident. Several national-media stories appeared at about the same time, making in particular the points about the shooter's mental state and the absence of any political or ideological factor. You either missed them or did not believe them.

Our politics is the most polarized it has been in several decades. Both national parties are dominated by their most ideological wings. The polarization is further fed by media commentators, Left and Right,
who earn good livings by feeding commentary and opinions to
partisans who enjoy hearing their own opinions and biases validated.
This should not be confused with traditional news analysis.

It's important for all of us, in this environment, to examine facts before reaching conclusions. In this instance I fear you reached the conclusion you liked, facts notwithstanding, and are determined to stick with it.

Sorry Ted, more false equivalence.

The Republicans ARE indeed dominated by their most ideological wing.

But the Democrats are dominated by a Center Right group of politicians including many Wall Street and Big Business leaders.

The "most ideological wing" of the Democratic party would be in favor of

Single Payer Health Care,
Immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan,
Immediate closing of Guantanamo,
A 50% cut in Defense Spending, (if not more)
A huge CCC style infrastructure program starting tommorow,
FREE government paid for education thru undergraduate degrees for every american,
Higher Taxes,
The Dream Act and Immigration Reform
Ending the Death Penalty
A working Industrial Policy for the USA that helps insure living wage jobs
An Environmental policy that acknowledges Climate Change, and pushes for federally funded Alternative Energy
High Speed Rail thruout the USA
More inclusive voting registration laws, not this phony push for Voter ID
Cessation of extra judicial assasinations of civilians and US citizens abroad by Drones

And those are just the more moderate ideas.

The dominant wing of the Democratic party is not pushing for any of these things, the President is not sending up bills with the things that need to be legislated, and he is not changing the regulations he could do unilaterally. And whatever Wall Street Wants, Wall Street has been getting.

The current Democratic administration is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a moderate Republican administration of the 50's, 60's, or even 70's- if anything, its postions are more to the Right than Eisenhower, or, in many cases, even Nixon. Nixon instituted Wage and Price controls. Can you imagine the outcries of "socialism" if Obama even mentioned such a thing?

Ted -

You're right. I don't believe the mainstream media reports. It's pretty much impossible to know exactly what contributed to the motivation of the Tucson shooter because there is no record of what media he read and listened to. So how can they (and you) make such a definitive conclusion? It doesn't make sense. Like many people other than yourself, I am very cautious about what to believe in today's propagandized media.

The constant drumbeat of calls to violence comes from right wing media, not the left. It comes from Glenn Beck not Rachel Maddow. Glenn Beck has specifically said 'you must shoot them in the head', referring to liberals. Rachel Maddow has never done that.

Sarah Palin had graphics in her web site that had a gun rile crosshairs over Gabriel Giffords district. Rachel Maddow did not.

So yes, Ted, count me as a skeptic in much of what I read. Even the Columbine shootings are questionable. They found LP gas tanks at the school that supposedly the shooters were going to blow up. But it's never been covered how they could have possibly gotten those LP gas tanks into the school. Not like you can hide a tank under your coat. But this huge issue has been completely skipped over and ignored by the mainstream media you have so much faith in.

Ted -

It's always very unwise to make blanket conclusions quickly after any crime yet you do so time and time again. The investigators are still trying to figure out why this guy did what he did. Yet you make a blanket conclusion as if you know more than the authorities who are investigating do.

Here's your quote from your article:
"The Wisconsin shooting was undertaken by a person who had been on a Southern Poverty Law Center dangerous-person watchlist for a long period. He clearly was unable to distinguish between turban-wearing Sikhs, totally uninvolved in Jihadist activity, and persons or groups he associated with it. He clearly did not possess a normal mental state."

Read today's New York Times.
Investigators Seek Clues in Gunman’s Last Weeks Before Temple Murders
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/us/wisconsin-gunman-killed-himself-authorities-say.html

TVD's comments are typical of those who quickly say shooters are 'evil' and mentally unstable. This seems to be completely wrong in the case of the Wisconsin shooter. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was a White Supremacist. Hatred toward nonwhites was his normal state of mind.

From the NY Times article:
“He wasn’t suspicious at all,” Mr. Nugent said in an interview. “He just looked like a normal guy. He didn’t talk stupid or talk crazy. Didn’t smell of alcohol or drugs. Didn’t say anything out of the normal.”

In the weeks before the shooting, Mr. Weins went to Mr. Page’s apartment to collect rent and found him sitting in the dark, Mr. Edmonds said, recalling a conversation he had with Mr. Weins this week. Days before the killing, Mr. Edmonds said, Mr. Weins received a text message from Mr. Page saying he was having a horrific week and he would get him his rent money on Sunday.

I just knew that union violence was a right wing plot against scabs. The postings above have confirmed it.

Ah yes, Union Violence- why if you look at the long list of mass killing by Union Members with firearms, you have to go back to 1993, when Eddie York was killed in West Virginia, thats one.

And before that, well, you need to go back to 1922, and the Herrin Massacre where 20 strikebreakers were shot.
Which was, no question, a horrific act by Union members.

And it was also in 1922.

But its clearly completely equivalent to, say, Tim McVeigh blowing up 168 people, because he hated our liberal government.

The real problem with shooting rampages by mentally ill people is that these unfortunate individuals were never given decent mental health care. They were given a diagnosis that only describes their symptoms, plus talk therapy to talk about their symptoms, then expensive, synthetic, patented drugs in an attempt to control their symptoms. AT NO TIME were they given the kind of medical care that would have cured them. Why not? Because no one is REQUIRING mental health care that actually works.

America's model of mental health care is only palliative care because drug companies and psychiatrists have us all believing that mental illnesses are incurable. Well, of course, they're incurable if you're only treating the symptoms. James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado gunman, was never given real psychiatric care, the kind of care with at least a 90% rate of recovery. Instead, he was given drugs in an attempt to control his symptoms (didn't work very well did it?). Psychiatrists are not legally required to even attempt to find the biological causes of their patients' illnesses, so they don't.

Had James Holmes been given real, medical psychiatric care, there is at least a 90% chance the shooting rampage would never have occurred; a 90% chance his victims would remain unharmed; and a 90% chance James would still be in graduate school, studying away for his PhD.

The real culprit in all this is America's ineffective, highly-profitable, evil system of mental health care that cures no one.

Ask unions about their ties to organized crime and the mobs. Ask Jimmy Hoffa about union violence after 1922. Go ahead I dare you.