In the news we keep hearing about the recent mass shooting. We hear about how something must be done to keep our children safe. We see high emotions, hysteria, to protect children. I understand the emotion of fear and can feel empathy. I do not let my emotions override my reasoning when I have enough data to make a decent assessment. Based on analysis of the data I've been able to digest my conclusions are:

- Gun control based on the data is not an effective policy.
- No specific law that I'm aware of would have prevented Cruz from acquiring a gun.
- Cruz, based on his murder of defenseless animals for fun, resembled a budding psychopath in the making and it seemed only a matter of time before he progressed to killing people.
- The United States has one of if not the highest per capita mental illness rates on earth.
- The United States has the most guns per capita on planet earth.
- The United States has the most prisoners per capita on planet earth (mass incarceration).
- Around 3% of the United States has almost 50% of the guns which means there is gun hoarding going on.
- The actual odds of dying in a mass shooting is extremely low, only 1 in 15325 people. (The odds of dying of cancer is 1 in 7, the odds of dying from a bicycle is 1 in 4485, the odds of dying in a police shooting is 1 in 8719.

The actual risk of dying in a mass shooting is only moderate
---

<a title="By US gov (US gov) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARisk_Matrix_Simple.jpg"><img width="512" alt="Risk Matrix Simple" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Risk_Matrix_Simple.jpg"/></a>
By US gov (US gov) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons



So let's discuss the numbers and think about this rationally? I have a greater chance of dying by the police than by a mass shooter. I have a greater chance dying riding my bike than by a mass shooter.  Do we disarm the police and outlaw bikes? Police and bikes are more likely by the statistics to get us killed than a mass shooter. 

Based on a risk matrix, we can determine actual risk based on frequency and severity. Frequency of mass shootings is low and is not any higher than it has been. Severity of mass shootings is the maximum as there is nothing worse than loss of life for most people. So while coverage on the media makes it seem like there is greater frequency this is not the case. It is the case in the statistics that the deadliness of the mass shootings is going up (more people dying by the hands of fewer persons). This doesn't mean more people are dying overall in mass shootings, just the the mass shootings are killing more people at a time. So the truth is, based on risk, when severity is equal, the frequency becomes the difference maker.

What effective policy options are on the table?
----

The other question is of effectiveness. In my opinion gun control policies are as ineffective as the drug policies. We have seen the War on Drugs which also we implemented to protect the children from the drug dealer. The War on Drugs did not result in less accessibility. Anyone who wants drugs can get drugs due to there being a black market. If we substitute guns for drugs then we can see that just as a black market for liquor formed during prophibition, and a black market for drugs formed during the war on drugs, a black market for guns could form. There is perhaps more than 1 gun per person in the United States, and guns are being hoarded, so those guns unless confiscated will remain accessible by a portion of the serial killers, the psychopaths. I am open to any policies which are proven effective in studies in the United States, as I follow the data and if the data shows a policy is effective on the local level then why not scale it up? I do not support policies which have no evidence or data supporting the effectiveness of the policy. In my opinion gun control policies already exist and are not preventing mass murderers from accessing guns, and gun confiscation seems to be infeasible because I do not see gun hoarders volunteering to hand over their guns.


What about genetics?
---

There are two genes MAOA and CDH13 which were found [(in a scientific study)](http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014130a.html) to be associated with violent crime. This means children could be screened for these genes. I would support a policy which screens for a genetic tendency toward violence so that parents of these children and the children themselves can learn more about themselves and strive to become better more self regulating persons. Neurofeedback has displayed evidence of effectiveness for treating ADHD, to help brains develop better responses over time.  This may indicate that if children are identified to have the genes associated with a propensity for violence then they can be helped (if they know they have the gene). There is no indication in studies that I'm aware of that budding serial killers with no empathy can be helped, and the literature shows that children who murder animals for fun are more likely to become serial killers.

Conclusion
---

<a title="By Stuart G Hamilton (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARisk_matrix_with_simple_quadrant_strategy.jpg"><img width="512" alt="Risk matrix with simple quadrant strategy" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Risk_matrix_with_simple_quadrant_strategy.jpg"/></a>
By Stuart G Hamilton (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons


The data suggests that the risk of death in a mass shooting is moderate. This means we should monitor, study the problem, and plan effective solutions. Effectiveness of a solution can be measured by the impact assessment. A policy such as the war on drugs in conclude as ineffective because the impact of that policy is negative and resulted in mass incarceration. The policy did not result in achieving the goal which they stated at the time was to reduce drug use (harm reduction). Gun control if it is implemented by harsh sentences for possession offenses, will likely lead to even more mass incarceration. I do not see this as being effective for reducing mass shootings.

References
---
1. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/29/does-the-human-warrior-gene-make-violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

Lansbergen, M. M., van Dongen-Boomsma, M., Buitelaar, J. K., & Slaats-Willemse, D. (2011). ADHD and EEG-neurofeedback: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled feasibility study. Journal of neural transmission, 118(2), 275-284.