Sandy Hook shooting highlights deficient access to psychiatry in the U.S., expert says

[Igel]

14. People want a single solution to a complex problem.

Difficulty is, there are a lot of things that contributed to Sandy Hook.

Some people want guns restricted. Some people would settle for much more invasive background checks. They see this as a crisis to leverage into more gun regulation.

Some people want better psych care. They see this as a tragedy that can be used to buttress their arguments for better psych care.

Some look at the conditions of the schools. They see this as an opportunity to improve security at schools.

Some look at the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. They see this as an opportunity to allow more options for self-defense.

Others look at it more holistically and want US culture (or some subcultures) to be refashioned along the lines they'd prefer. They argue that this cries out for a radical reshaping and rethinking of American values.

"Ask not how you can help stop killings, ask what corpses can do for your agenda."

This is also the basis of a lot of the defenses. People are what they are, and the last thing they want is something taken away or to be insulted. The right to own or carry guns. Reputation. Dignity. Somebody's going to lose, and it had damned well be somebody else.

But for a complex problem any of the proposed solutions would help a bit. All you can do is try to reduce the killing. But you have to decide what you're willing to give up for it. (Most people are really eager to decide what others have to give up for it.)

Gun restrictions on gun ownership would help--no guns in the US, no chance to use them. Self-defense is a losing argument in polarized discourse--you can never convince those who don't want to be convinced, because you can never be absolutely sure beyond any doubt at all that a mass murder would have occurred in the absence of self defence. Lose a right, save lives.

More extensive background checks and other regulations to verify compliance would also help. If you're thoroughly checked out because all the records are centralized and available, if compliance is subject to on-site verification, then it would reduce the killing. How many lives is your privacy worth? Lose a right, save lives.

More health care is always a popular thing to say we deserve. In this case, it also loses because the kid had access to health care. Hence the "optimal" line in the OP--which isn't what you think. All the OP's examples of "improved" and "optimal" health care all boil down to "interventions"--the ability of the powers that be to take those who are judged to be a threat into custody for compulsory treatment. This used to be easier, but the right to due process and the requirement for clear evidence was made more stringent. But there's no doubt, committing Lanza would have saved lives even if it would impose on his personal freedom. Was Lanza's freedom worth the lives of those kids? Lose a right, save lives.

Lots of ways to save lives. Every way has a price. Prices others pay are just about always less than those we're asked to pay.