@jwray I think genetic factors play a role in how aggressive someone is, I just think that in a society as genetically diverse as the US it will be impossible that that is the difference compared to other countries. My guess is that genes only explain a small part of gun violence, and no more than in other countries.

I think the vast majority of the high gun violence can be explained by culture. The US is a dog eat dog world. The mindset of the country seems to be Ann Randish / Neo Liberal / Right compared to similar countries in the rest of the world. The US seems to prefer personal freedom over common good.

In a country with that state of mind, you tend to get that everyone fights for themselves and there is less willingness to compromise. Everyone becomes defensive. Throw in poverty (another part of the same mindset) and guns and you get an explosive mix.

It is a classic prisoner dilemma. Everyone would be better off if they cooperate, yet because of lack of trust everyone defects.

Japan is one of the many places that shows what you can achieve with more social safety. It costs higher taxes and less personal freedom, you get back less death.

I still have heard of any "SANE preventative means" that don't involve restricting gun ownership.

This is much like the war on terror insofar as victory is just minimisation not eradication. Massacres like this are going to continue so long as access to easily usable weaponry is maintained. The best you can realistically hope for in the USA is to have fewer of them. As such it is going to be near impossible to provide compelling evidence that a decrease in access to weapons amounts to a decrease in shootings as there are always going to be sporadic shootings in a country with so widely spread gun ownership. One massacre equals grist for the mill to those who say gun laws didnt stop anything just as all the counter-terrorist efforts haven't stopped terrorism. It is going to take a degree of calmness and maturity that the USA, given its heritage, simply doesn't possess. The rest of the developed world has only come to these findings after the fact and is screaming at the USA to heed their experienced advice. Likewise, the rest of the developed world can't get it through their heads that the USA has 'jumped the shark' in relation to gun ownership and proliferation and nothing short of a revolutionary change in the cultural psychology, such that near universal voluntary relinquishment of gun ownership is required, will address the problem.

In short, gun ownership in the USA is The Prisoners Dilemma writ large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

@MonkeySpank

It will, because both will feint choosing to steal when in reality they are planning to share.

If both let the other know that they intend to pursue this strategy (and both are able to convince the other), then the payoffs (for each of them) are:

Steal - Nothing.
Share - Split or All.

It's almost like as a result you're turning the prisoners dilemma on its head.

Agreed, always steal first.

However the prisoners dilemma becomes much more interesting if it repeats.

edit: tags kinda give away the ending, btw

Very interesting, thanks Fed.

There was more on the subject of 'the prisoners dilemma' and the 'tit-for-tat' theory in this post by Benjee:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Nice-Guys-Finish-First-documentary-47min

Dawkins has also talked about eugenics in other interviews, stating that it does indeed work insofar as the favouring certain traits in reproduction. The only caveat seemed to be that you can start seeing odd side effects. He sited an example on foxes (I think it was) that were being bred to be less aggressive, but they would later start to develop spotted fur and look something akin to domesticated animals. If I can find the interview, I shall link to it.