A mass shooting happens, and the same reactions as always

This is in reference to some left-wing sites.  For example, I went to the Memeorandum site in order to get a flavor of how the mass shootings were being covered.

Right off the top, I'd say that any serious news outlet would not let a lot of this stuff get attention.

I looked up the phrase "non-sequitur".   Indeed, for that is what passes for left-wing expression these days.  The thought came to mind.

There can be such a thing as cause and effect for something like this, but only if there is a direct connection between one and the other.  In other words, for A to be responsible for B's actions, A would have to have had some direct association with B in the planning of the deed in fact.  If Trump is to be responsible then, then he would have had to personally direct this guy to do what he did.  Otherwise, how can one assess responsibility?

Could Trump be held responsible for the things he says?  If he is held responsible for anything like that, then why aren't a whole lot of other people responsible too?   One basic non-sequitur is to say that Trump's criticism of Rep Cummings was somehow responsible for this.  It is a bit tortuous to even attempt to unravel that chain of thought.  I think I'll pass.  For those who wish to make it their argument, then explain yourselves.

One can vainly hope that pubic discussion can focus in on possible solutions to this type of crime.

One suggestion that I've made is to hold big box retailers and/or any other establishment that hosts this many people, responsible for justifying their gun-free policies.  If they are going to invite people into their establishments with such a policy, they should take responsibility for the security of the place.  Otherwise, they should be held liable for lawsuits, should the victims or survivors seek that remedy.  I think people have a right to expect that gun-free establishments justify why they think that their way of handling security is adequate in sufficient number of cases.

Not all crimes can be foreseen.  But reasonable measures could be taken that would discourage such attacks in the future.  However, if a truly determined perpetrator wants to badly enough, even these may prove insufficient.

There is a pattern here.  These guys tend to attack people in crowded places, and in which people are unarmed.  If these guys went after a police station, it might be an eye opener.  Hardened targets, therefore, are safer than soft ones.  Gun-control does not address this basic motivation.  It may actually encourage more of the same.

But I suppose that would make too much sense.  We'll get the usual nonsense, and little real prospect of change for the better.