[igetspam]

It's nice that you have it all figured out. Now solve for school shootings? I'll preload the specifics for you:

* Not gang related

* Never (almost never?) happened at an "inter city" school

* Not in places with strict gun control laws

Bonus points of you can do it while blaming mental health AND justify our decreased spending on mental health.

The mic is yours.

[busymom0]

> Bonus points of you can do it while blaming mental health AND justify our decreased spending on mental health. The mic is yours.

This along with rest of your snide comment indicates to me that you have some pre-conceived incorrect assumptions about me and therefore I am not entertaining you.

[igetspam]

You expressed a rather simplistic view of a much larger issue, stating a single problem as the core. I didn't judge your opinion untill you provided it, therefore it can't be preconceived.

As a gun owner, I'm fully aware of the complexity of the issue. Pointing at socioeconomics as the root is naive. It ignores the vast majority of incidents to focus very narrowly on one factor. The reality is if you only look at the one instance and ignore the whole, you cannot address the actual problems. Socioeconomics have nothing to do with almost all of our mass shootings because most of them aren't gang related. It doesn't account for most homicides by gun because they're individual issues.

We country divided politically, racially and sexually (gender, not intercourse) and pretty free access to firearms. Wanna guess what happens when people don't like each other or have heated arguments and have guns? Hint: shooting.

So sure, try and solve for the one thing and ignore all the rest. You can't solve for it because you're dealing with historically unrepresented populations of people that we've shoved into a corner together and we basically ignore. You wanna actually solve for all the killing we do? Make access to firearms require more than just a pulse.