For fear of getting shot or angering "People with guns," no one will/can stand up for gun con control.

Gun Lobbyists have cash.

The first thing we should do is decide, in the wake of these tragedies, what we should be talking about instead providing a knee jerk reaction.

I would have said the discussion should center around mental-health and the need for it. On that, both men have spoken, Obama through the Affordable Care Act, and Romney through the Massachusetts Health Reform Act.

BUT, in the case of the Colorado shooting, James Holmes' psychiatrist went to local authorities with concerns about this mentally unstable person. Michael Page, responsible for the most recent Wisconsin shooting, was already being watched by authorities.

The question I propose is: Why were these men who should have been monitored closer able to develop and execute elaborate plans to massacre innocent people if the authorities already knew about them?

I'll leave it at that with this final comment: an overstaffed, underworked police force was not a problem in either instance. And funding or defunding local municipalities through the raising or lowering of taxes is something both candidates have spoken on frequently.

I don't think a reasonable, impartial viewer could look at America vs almost every other western democracy and say gun laws aren't a significant part of the story, if not the most significant factor. Only when you accept that fact, and say 'ok, we realise that, but gun ownership is an important part of who we are, and we don't want to change that', then @JiggaJonson has some areas where America might be able to reduce the frequency of these types of events.

Effectively, though, you're trying to stop a problem of easy access to high powered weapons by reducing mental health issues across a society - a pretty indirect solution.

Moving this video to wormwood's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.