The other reason is that just as there is widespread prejudice against LGBT people, there is also widespread prejudice against Muslims. Both prejudices are expressed in various ways which include political demonstrations, legislation, and violence. Neither is remotely justifiable.

Because that's a really reductive and simplistic view of Islam, as it would be of Christianity. We're talking about major religions that span continents and centuries, and that literally billions of people living and dead have followed. Religions that contain contradictory elements and that are open to an extremely…

What you have in Iran and Saudi Arabia though are specific forms and interpretations of Islam, and in both cases the US and UK are heavily involved in the history of those countries (not to mention Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc).

Surely if the constitution has been amended before (as it was in 1865 to abolish slavery, for example) then it can be again? No constitution is so perfect that it doesn't need to be added to or changed over the decades and centuries after it was written.

"USA might be the mightiest and most short-lived empire in history"

That's not much of an excuse for doing nothing. It's something that has to be dealt with. And I'd guess it's not a unique problem but is probably the case in any country after a war.

Making guns illegal obviously doesn't make terrorism/massacres impossible, but it does make them more difficult, and thus less frequent.

The motivation (homophobia) is important, but that doesn't mean that the ability to carry out his intentions (made possible by the ready availibility of guns) is any less important.

This disaster wasn't large enough? Try adding it to the hundreds of similar atrocities that have been committed before it.

You think Louis CK should bomb a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan?

The thing is that such massacres are inherently political. The best response to yet another mass shooting is to do everything possible (within reason) to stop it happening again (and again, and again). That means political change. To not "politiscise" the tragedy is to ensure that it keeps happening.

"The problem is hate coupled with entitlement."

Ideally, the kind of gun control measures that exist in Britain, that we're brought in after the Dunblane massacre.

No, but banning personal ownership of handguns and military type rifles, and restricting and monitoring ownership of other kinds of gun (hunting rifles, etc) would.

"Some tragedies can not be prevented outside of hindsight. No gun law would have protected the Sandy Hook victims, nor many other shootings"

It would be impossible to prevent EVERY mass shooting, but gun control would prevent MOST of them (as well as most shootings generally). Rather than mass shootings happening on a regular basis (every 1-2 weeks on average) they would be relatively very rare, like they are in, say, Britain.

"This is one of those shocks of living in a modern world where everybody has a gun"

Good plan. You'll never have children with a cat.

SPOILER: Thomas Ligotti suffers from anhedonia. After reading his books you will too!

NB: my conception of the working class does not include King Edward VIII, the Queen Mother, or Lord Beaverbrook.