Your article provides no research or backup. In short, no facts. Everything you discuss is conjecture.

For example, did you know that the vast majority of school shooters come from stable two-parent homes?

Did you know that many killers are motivated by "evil" motives (ie are psychopaths) but also many are truly disturbed, like Cho? And yet, you immediately jump to the conclusion that Lanza was "diabolically evil".

You say yourself that you aren't coming to provide an answer for mass shootings. So why do you bring it up? Why is it a theme of your piece at all? Why not simply write a piece about angry men, about broken homes, and more?

The only answer that I can come up with is that you are trying to get more people to read your article. Whether that is the case or not (I hope it isn't), what you have done by publishing this article is continuing the cycle of misinformation and myths that surround these shootings.

Your article provides no research or backup. In short, no facts. Everything you discuss is conjecture.

For example, did you know that the vast majority of school shooters come from stable two-parent homes?

Did you know that many killers are motivated by "evil" motives (ie are psychopaths) but also many are truly disturbed, like Cho? And yet, you immediately jump to the conclusion that Lanza was "diabolically evil".

You say yourself that you aren't coming to provide an answer for mass shootings. So why do you bring it up? Why is it a theme of your piece at all? Why not simply write a piece about angry men, about broken homes, and more?

The only answer that I can come up with is that you are trying to get more people to read your article. Whether that is the case or not (I hope it isn't), what you have done by publishing this article is continuing the cycle of misinformation and myths that surround these shootings.

It is who we are and any law that violates it will be thrown out by the Courts.

And the "anger American male" (usually with "white") included is an old, tattered and long discredited bromide. The rate of violent crime in America is actually going down, which suggests less rather than more rage. It's the UK and France who have problems with rising levels of violence. And what violence we do have typically flows out of the drug trade, with dealers killing other dealers. A large social angst has little to do with it.

And if the number of mass killings plus suicides are rising, blame that on our news media. It's the only way these demented losers can have their fifteen minutes of fame. These stories need to be covered, but not with the feeding frenzy they get, and they should be allowed to die a quick death, not to launch long-discredited campaigns for more gun control. Disarmed ordinary people won't protect anyone. Israel did the right thing when it responded to terrorism directed at schools by arming teachers.

I might add that even a child can see that, with almost all these killings taking place in no-gun zones, turning our nation into a no-gun zone isn't the answer. Norway has almost done that and their mass killing was far larger than any in the U.S. Here, within minutes, neighbors would have been landing on the island armed to the teeth. There, they waited 90 minutes for the police to arrive. The gutlessness of Norwegian youth, most never exposed to guns or the necessity to fight, was pitiful. They simply waited to be shot. Sad.

I do agree, however, that broken families, as well as families that never form, do contribute our social ills. Absent a dependable, in-the-home father, young men often turn violent and young women promiscuous.

You state, "only cowards would refuse to hold a national conversation now about gun laws, which is necessary at this juncture, whatever the conclusions." I'd like to know your conclusions. The implied point is that guns are the problem, or at least that we need to go further to limiting access to them by law-abiding citizens. As Thomas Sowell notes, "The key fallacy of so-called gun-control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available." The more one looks into the impact of these laws, the more one can see there is actually some counter-intuitive logic going on. Like most good-natured drive – with government regulation the actual impact on the ground actual works against our designs. I'd prefer to have a firearm to protect my family, the same way Mrs. Lanza legally owned firearms. DWI kills thousands of people every year, but who is prepared to make drinking a "national conversation". This is political code language for more gun control – which displaces the real conversation.

However, aside from the gun discussion (a regrettable flippant note early on in your article), I very much agree with your point that this is an issue of culture. Of family. Of who we are. The true destructive forces at work in our society. Broken families, no social/family support systems, and a moral relativism that leaves young people afloat and alone. The permutation and glorification of narcissism. The same Hollywood stars tweeting about gun control are pumping out movie after movie with mass murder. First-Person-Shooter games are used by each one of these animals. What's a role model? Snark and cynicism is everywhere. So my second question of my post: what to do about it?

Thanks, Rabbi