[neilk]

I think you missed the point. Gun control might be a good idea, but not because it will reduce the likelihood of psychopathic spree killings.

Psychopathic spree killings are such a low-probability, extreme event that there's almost nothing you can do, at a public policy level, to influence them. Your monkey brain may protest that this simply cannot be (as mine does), but our monkey brains are wrong.

Instead we need to look for significant trends. Or consider that our actions might cause other harms more often, which is especially likely when our actions are driven by low-probability events. Basing public policy on such extreme events is not just stupid, it's immoral.

And yet, that's exactly the job of the media. The media works, by and large, by telling individual stories to provoke general sympathy or outrage. This is a good thing when that story is representative of a larger problem. What we have now is random phenomena driving larger political discussions.

[Steko]

"Psychopathic spree killings are such a low-probability, extreme event that there's almost nothing you can do, at a public policy level, to influence them. "

This is completely false. Being rare doesn't mean there aren't things that can make it even more rare. Many countries have taken steps that make these events far less likely.

[neilk]

You're right - I misspoke there. The OP was more careful, and discussed "iatrogenic" harms (an analogy to medical harms that arise from an attempt to treat a problem).

So, I'll revise what I'm saying to this: if you have a measure that you want to take that is only justified by such extreme events, it's probably not a good idea.