Some of the things I've been reading lately about this point more, to me, to how popular culture interfaces with disturbed young men.

1. These guys know about the previous mass murderers and they study what they did. The CT. killer, the guy in Oregon and the criminal in Aurora all dressed more or less in costume.

2. They are aware of how what they do will play. The Oregon guy announced that "I am the shooter." That could have come right out of a news report.

3. These guys plan the deed. One of the things they plan is where they can do it with small possibility of effective opposition. They like so called "gun free zones." "Gun free zones" are really statements of moral rectitude by a part of the popular culture.

4. They want to kill, not fight. If they run into opposition or are about to, they surrender or kill themselves.

With all this in mind there are two things that can be done, in my opinion, that may actually reduce these killings. The first is to somehow, someway make it so their names and faces aren't known by all. I don't mean passing a law. I mean restraint on the part of the media. I don't see any reason why anybody should know their names. The should just be known as the "murderer", the "criminal", the "thing" or something else that is both anonymous and shameful. That will take away the imaginings of mass media glory the I believe drives this.

The second thing is to insert some uncertainty into their calculations. They won't fight. Right now there are places where they can be certain they won't have to fight, schools being the most obvious example. If schools were to announce that some of the teachers, all of the teachers or none of the teachers at any institution may or may not have ready access to weapons, depending on their disposition, that would be enough to remove the certainty that opposition won't be there.

These events partly result from the culture of the US. That can be changed but not by the gov. Somehow we have to change it.