Live Q&As

I have not. I was asked to comment on the court proceedings there, which seemed a little unusual to me in that they seemed to incorporate issues of his mental health, along with what happened and a sort of sentencing hearing when the victims are able to speak all wrapped into on. But also, the Breivik shootings seemed to have a much deeper political motivation than most of the shootings here in the United States.

I vaguely recall some schools banning trench coats after the Columbine shootings because that is what the gunmen wore. I can only guess that some schools cracked down on the "outcasts" because they were seen as more likely to commit shootings. The better issue would be to promote an atmosphere where students on all rungs of the social ladder can get along.

From what I've seen, many school shooters have a lack of female companionship - and I'm not talking about girls who are just friends, but girlfriends in the romantic sense. The Columbine killers wrote endlessly about their lack of ability to obtain dates. Would a romantic relationship have helped? I suppose it is possible. The anger needed to carry out a shooting, I believe, is immense. The fundamental question here is what, if anything, can mitigate that? Is it a girlfriend? Is it more acceptance?

We do have the shootings in Norway, which I believe killed 77 people. There was also a mass shooting in Winnenden, Germany and one in England in 2010. These societies look very much like the United States in that they are democratic and have advanced and wealthy economies. Yet I also believe gun control is stricter in all those countries outside the United States. So there are differences and similarities. Having said that, I have seen that there are more mass shootings in the United States than anywhere else, and that may in part be a function of various parts of our society: easier access to guns (although I don't mean for that to be an endorsement of gun control), and the culture of honor  I discuss in the Five Myths piece. I also saw one professor say we simply have a more violent society here in the United States.

Keep in mind we are talking about two different sets of people here. In Columbine, you had two teenagers who were still living at home with their parents at the time of the shootings. I believe the nexus there is much closer when you ask what the parents knew and if they had any responsibility. When you are talking about a 24-year0ld man such as the Aurora shooter who lives in another state from his parents, the nexus can easily get much wider both legally and morally.

 As someone who has covered some of these shootings firsthand, there seems to be surprise when people find out the guns were obtained legally. I think you are right in that there is a concern that people are able to own such powerful weapons. But I also think people are surprised that, simply put, someone so easily walked into a gun store or gun show and purchased them. Part of it may be that we see these shooters as sneaking around and hiding their plans and therefore buying guns on the sly when it is really done out in the open.

I think it is reasonable to assume that in general, the more restrictions you put on something, the more people will be deterred. But it is also a tough question: At what point will someone like the Columbine killers or Aurora suspect be deterred. I believe that these shooters in general are very motivated. And in Columbine and Aurora, very smart. Again, it is a tough question as to how far we are willing to go to limit guns from the wide majority of the population in the hopes of stopping some of these shooters. I am not advocating one way or the other, but saying that I think it would take a lot of gun control/restrictions to stop them.

I appreciate all the gun control questions. On that note, there was a fascinating story in the New York Times that I blogged about regarding China, where guns are very hard to obtain. Yet there were schoolyard attacks with knives and other weapons. Again, these shooters will generally find a way. Catching warning signs may be a better help.

It depends on the outcome of the arrest. If he obtained a felony on his record, or a certain mental health diagnosis, he may be prohibited from owning firearms. As a result of his arrest, he may be ordered into counseling  and/or probation. In that sense, there would be more people in more constant and in-depth contact with him who could either keep him steady or catch warning signs.

As I've mentioned in a couple of the other gun control answers, it's just not clear that anything will stop these shooters from obtaining weapons. Still, if they cannot obtain assault rifles but still other guns, will the shootings be less deadly? Probably. But then shooters might just turn to the black market to obtain more deadly weapons. I think catching warning signs might be a better prevention path, which I think leads into the next question on mental illness.

These mass shootings may be a wake up call to more help for the mentally ill. That was actually mentioned yesterday. I covered the court hearing for the suspected shooter and the aunt of one of the murder victims said we need more help for the mentally ill. Keep in mind too: Columbine shooter Eric Harris was seeing a psychologist and was on the drug Luvox at the time of the shootings.

On Columbine: The killers illegally purchased a semiautomatic TEC-9 from a friend of a friend. That seller was prosecuted and sentenced to prison. Shooter Dylan Klebold's friend, who he went to prom with as a friend, purchased the other three guns for the shooters at a gun show. Because they were "long guns" (such as rifle and shotgun) the transfer to a minor, at the time was legal. I would add this: Prosecutors want to prosecute on  these cases. I don't think they would back off.

Sorry. Didn't mean to ignore you. Is it possible someone with a concealed weapon could hit a shooter before police arrive? I suppose so. Is it also possible that the person with a concealed weapon would hit an innocent bystander. I believe that is also the case. That is the crux of the argument. How much potential uncertainty are we willing to add to these situations?