I just don't see this article as putting forward an argument one way or the other. It just talks about the statistics of mass shooters from several different angles. It is focused on the individual circumstances of the shooters rather than policy or wider culture. It is left to the reader to draw conclusions if they want.

Excluding what amounts to "exculpatory evidence facts" shapes the impression readers receive.

It's like a form of political correctness. Writers using weasel words so no one thinks they may be hinting at something controversial that may offend people. Perhaps they should put a disclaimer at the start reminding us that guns are not at fault.

It is just an unreasonable burden to expect articles about mass killings in America to completely ignore guns.

Maybe mass shootings follow the Swiss cheese model [0]. Several sets of circumstances align and you get a terrible outcome. Mental health, family, drugs, propaganda whatever. But guns are also a big hole in the cheese. It shouldn't be contraversial to point that out.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

Sure, but it's also not particularly useful. Obviously you need access to guns to use them, so it just serves to distract from the other issues. If guns weren't available but everything else lined up, would bombs be used instead? That would require a couple of other things to line up, but it doesn't prevent the problem.

I want to know why these mental issues arise and how we might go about preventing them. I imagine there are more similarities between suicides and mass shootings than the media admits, yet the former gets mentioned with mental health while the latter focuses on access to guns.

We need to figure out how these mental health issues develop and find ways to solve them before they become a public problem. Maybe that means controlled, legal access to psychedelics, idk, but we need more than a copout of "gun control will solve everything". Maybe gun control is part of the solution, but it's certainly not the only part.

California has hurdles to clear (universal background check law, a 10-day waiting period, limits on handgun purchases, a microtracking system, a personal safety test, a ban on assault weapons, a minimum age to purchase of shotguns/rifles, red-flag laws allowing police to confiscate guns). I guess it's subjective, but I think these laws are fairly lax. Given those laws, how hard is it to actually obtain a firearm? It's pretty easy! So I'm not sure what kind of effect you're expecting from these laws...

Also, whenever a mass shooting occurs, by definition the currently enacted laws failed to prevent it. The same can be said anytime there's murder, theft, rape, terrorism and so on.

"Given those laws, how hard is it to actually obtain a firearm? It's pretty easy!"

Try to buy one. I double dare you. The only people who say this are those who haven't tried. Many reporters got egg on their faces when they tried making an expose' and failed. Others got in trouble because in their zeal to succeed, they were willing to lie on the required forms. Which could make them a felon...