The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved. Now a minority group can't be blamed.
If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.
Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.
Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.
Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.
It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction. There are plenty of logical arguments based on statistics and probability on both sides of the debate, but they never get much attention beyond people who passionately care one way or the other until something like this happens. I'm not suggesting that we leave legislation to hysterical Helen Lovejoy-types, but when the national media has shone a spotlight on the subject, and there are people who are impassioned enough to lobby their legislators and turn up to protests, then politicians who want to make a positive change (whatever that looks like) should be free to make the most of this situation without being accused of being 'a shitty person'
The Road Traffic Act 1934 was brought into effect in the UK following mass public outcry over a record number of casualties on Britain's roads. It reintroduced a speed limit, made tests compulsory, and included a number of other clauses which still inform British driving legislation today. In fact, reading about the battles underlying the Act, it's easy to see the similarities with America's gun control debate:
On the side of motor car controls, the Pedestrians' Association argued that busy main routes were, roads of ‘blood and tears’ because of the number of accidents.
On the side against controls, a Conservative MP railed against the pleas about 7,000 people a year dying on the roads by saying: "'Why such concern over 7,000 road deaths a year? More than 6,000 people commit suicide every year, and nobody makes a fuss about that."
Change only comes when people have an emotional investment in making it, insisting that we never talk about gun control or changes to legislation following a mass-shooting out of 'decency' or 'taste' is really just an effort to shut down the debate entirely.