From an emotional standpoint, I am at as much of a loss as anyone else to say something new or insightful when word arrives of yet another tragic nightmare involving a gun. One literally does not have enough time to process the immense horror of Colorado Springs before the still greater horror of San Bernardino (or Killeen, or Newtown, or Blacksburg, or . . . ) demands our collective attention and grief. The particular facts of each event may change, but the emotions elicited fundamentally do not; each time we have almost healed, we are hurt again. One is reminded, grimly, of Sisyphus, or perhaps of the punishment of Prometheus.
But from a logical standpoint, the conversation about guns in this country is so heated that no moderate position feels tenable, so vicious that only the most self-righteous dare attempt to defend their beliefs, and so much more concerned with signaling than with solutions that nothing meaningful can ever be accomplished by it.
This, then, is an attempt to return to first principles and thereafter tackle the problem dispassionately. This approach may strike some as callous. It may well be (I invite my readers to recall the title of this blog). But a new lens is needed, and this is the best I can come up with. I have a bias, but herein I make as great an effort as I can to keep it in check. I hope my thinking is helpful. My approach begins with one question:
What is the optimal number of mass shootings?
