This reader doesn't, and thinks a good enough reason for waiting is our uncertainty, as of this writing, about what was behind the Virginia Tech massacre. Clearly the shooter had planned his attack carefully; plainly he was practiced enough with his guns to maintain a rate of aimed fire for long enough to hit many targets. The ratio of dead to wounded suggests he went out of his way to hit many of his victims more than once.

What went in to something like this? I imagine we'll find out in the next few days. Right now all we can do is speculate about motives or influences, let alone policy options, so maybe the best thing after all is to grieve with the victims' families and friends and wait a while before dealing with the rest of it.

rather it's more that people feel they need to respond in some dramatic way and not so much that they have to. I'm sure American Idol will get as many viewers this week as it did last - of course only after some nauseating sentiment of support and sympathy is expressed. Are you naive enough to believe that in the White House they're not thinking about how to work this 'tragedy' to their benefit regarding embattled AG? Certainly effusive public pain will help hide the bodies piling up in Baghdad. I heard on CNN last night some idiot going on about how hard it is for a hospital to handle so many trauma cases at once - am I to believe this idiot is not aware that such things happen on a weekly basis in Iraq? Most public shows of grief evolve or devolve into a charade - whether that charade is necessary or not is another question.

So go ahead, policy wonks, talk policy - because we all know that's what you really want to do.

From page 364 of Steven Pinker's 'How The Mind Works':

"But running amok is not unique to America, to Western nations, or even to modern societies. Amok is a Malay word for the homicidal sprees occasionally undertaken by lonely Indochinese men who have suffered a loss of love, a loss of money, or a loss of face. The syndrome has been described in a culture even more remote from the West: stone-age foragers of Papua New Guinea.

The amok man is patently out of his mind, an automaton oblivious to his surroundings and unreachable by appeals or threats. But his rampage is preceded by lengthy brooding over failure, and is carefully planned as a means of deliverance from an unbearable situation. The amok state is chillingly cognitive. It is triggered not by a stimulus, not by a tumor, not by a random spurt of brain chemicals, but by an idea. The idea is so standard that the following summary of the amok mind-set, composed in 1968 by a psychiatrist who had interviewed seven hospitalized amok-Papua New Guinea, is an apt description of the thoughts of mass murders continents and decades away:

I am not an important or "big man." I possess only my personal sense of dignity. My life has been reduced to nothing by an intolerable insult Therefore, I have nothing to lose except my life, which is nothing, so I trade my life for yours, as your life is favoured. The exchange is in my favour, so I shall not only kill you, but I shall kill many of you, and at the same time rehabilitate myself in the eyes of the group of which I am member, even though I might be killed in the process.

The amok syndrome is an extreme instance of the puzzle of the human emotions. Exotic at first glance, upon scrutiny they turn out to be universal; quintessentially irrational, they are tightly interwoven with abstract thought and have a cold logic of their own."

This kind of behavior is not the product of a particular society, it is a product of human psychology. We can talk about policy changes that might reduce the (obviously already very low) probability that individuals will go amok and also changes that might reduce their lethality when they do. But we're never going to eliminate it entirely.

The conundrum is less a prohibition and more a warning. The major media have already chosen how they want to frame this issue - in terms of gun control. This is a debate we have all heard before, but if you're interested in increasing gun control in our society it makes sense to bring the issue up with every tragedy.

The beauty of attacking the means of the attack rather than the motivations is that backlash is considerably reduced.

And anyway, opportunism in the face of tragedy is as American as Al Sharpton.

Regarding Dan's meta question: Public policy is all about marketing. Most policy issues such as gun control (uh-oh, I hope I don't piss anyone off here) don't have clear-cut best solutions. It's all about persuading other people of your point of view. How can a competent advocate possibly pass up such a free marketing opportunity?

Regarding this particular event, Erasmus said more or less what I was thinking: gun control advocates use every gun-related tragedy to push their agenda. The press helps by fostering the impression that these attacks are common and increasing, when in fact they are exceeding rare. That is not to say that more gun control wouldn't help, just that it's an illogical argument.

"...gun control advocates use every gun-related tragedy to push their agenda."

As do those who oppose gun control. Witness those parroting the NRA's view that the way to solve the problem of gun violence is for more people to carry guns.

"parroting the NRA's view that the way to solve the problem of gun violence is for more people to carry guns" -- hadn't heard that this week. But I won't argue with you on the general point that advocates for all sides are shameless marketers. What I have NOT heard is a thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons of more gun control laws, and what might actually be effective in reducing this type of tragedy.

"parroting the NRA's view that the way to solve the problem of gun violence is for more people to carry guns" -- hadn't heard that this week. But I won't argue with you on the general point that advocates for all sides are shameless marketers. What I have NOT heard is a thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons of more gun control laws, and what might actually be effective in reducing this type of tragedy.