When pondering a solution for gun violence in the US, is "how" or "why" a more important question?

[Skip Intro]

How - how were the crimes committed? More important to examine what tools were used.

Why - why were the crimes committed? More important to understand circumstance, motivation and psyche of shooter.

Which question would lead to a more effective response?

Or should we look at both areas?


edited to correct typo

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	How. Take away the tools and such crimes diminish.
	2 (40%)
	Why. Understanding what moves a person to do such things will lead to better prevention measures.
	1 (20%)
	Both.
	2 (40%)
	Other.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[flamingdem]

1. It's difficult to pull off a mass murder without this high capacity guns

and this freaks who do it are in the mass media mindset of the feel good bullet spray, only the super nuts do things like gassing the subway because it's harder to do and requires a better developed ideology.

I'm against anyone who justifies that it's only people who kill when these guns are only made to commit mass murder.

[Indydem]

4. Really? How about some history.

"The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster

[Loudly]

2. Don't empower people to act out their grievances with the lethality of a gun.

Don't do it. Terrible idea.

[farminator3000]

3. how first, why later

there are dozens of reasons why, which can be debated endlessly and change with every case.

the answers to 'how' are a lot easier to answer and seem more preventative.

why seems more after the fact