>

If anybody wants to read the full report you can do so here
This seemed most interesting regarding the types of reasons and that most firearms were illegally obtained at the time…

Key findings include:
• Most of the attackers had exhibited behavior that elicited concern in family members, friends, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, and others, and in many cases, those individuals feared for the safety of themselves or others.
• Many attackers had a history of physically aggressive or intimidating behaviors, evidenced by prior violent criminal arrests/charges, domestic violence, or other acts of violence toward others.
• Half of the attackers were motivated by grievances, and were retaliating for perceived wrongs related to personal, domestic, or workplace issues.
• Most of the attackers used firearms, and many of those firearms were possessed illegally at the time of the attack.
• One-quarter of the attackers subscribed to a belief system involving conspiracies or hateful ideologies, including anti-government, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic views.
• Many attackers experienced stressful events across various life domains, including family/romantic relationships, personal issues, employment, and legal issues. In some of these cases, attackers experienced a specific triggering event prior to perpetrating the attack.
• Over half of the attackers experienced mental health symptoms prior to or at the time of their attacks, including depression, psychotic symptoms, and suicidal thoughts.
Mass Attacks in Public Spaces: 2016 - 2020
LIMITED TO OPEN SOURCE INFORMATION
What is the other 75%? I would have thought the % for hateful conspiracy theory driven attacks are higher but I am wrong. >

To get to something useful I think they need to start sorting these shootings into targeted and random.  Showing up at the place you used to work and shooting your former boss and coworkers is not the same as showing up at a grocery store and shooting random strangers.  Sorting only by body count is lumping 2 very different crimes together and is going to muddy any data related to motive. >


Showing up at the place you used to work and shooting your former boss and coworkers is not the same as showing up at a grocery store and shooting random strangers. 

JFC thank you! I've been saying things like this for years but I talk to so many people that think any crime with a gun is essentially identical. >

It gets fucking blurred when the guy shows up a decade later to shoot at people he was paranoid at but hasn’t been in contact with in that decade, along with random people. >

Yeah, but in conversations outside of this particular thread, people conflate crime related shootings, family destructions, other spousal abuse, workplace violence, a gun being mishandled by a guard in a school setting, and a person setting out to commit mass the mass murder of kids/adults/whoever. Those are distinct enough to warrant more detailed attention. >

Because those people ~~believe~~ recognize the devastation caused by all these causes could be, in the vast majority of cases, dramatically lessened by having ~~less~~ fewer guns.
Like, people might not even die because they could create distance from their baseball bat crazy spouse.  The dude who tried to kill his family failed because he chose a car as the method.
Edited for proposed grammar corrections >

~~believe~~ -> recognize
It's not a belief, it's a fact. >

It's not a fact at all.
It's an assumption, a rational one based on the available data, but still not a fact.    
I'd argue that the more critical issue is that if we aren't enforcing the gun laws we do have, new laws aimed at reducing the availability or total number of firearms aren't likely to be enforced either.  
Step one is actually enforcing existing rules and shoring up whatever shortcomings are preventing that enforcement from taking place (manpower/tools/rules/etc.) >

First, from the article "In over one-quarter of all mass shootings, the attackers possessed firearms illegally." So it sounds like you're at best only able to address that minority of the instances with enforcement of illegal possession. Second, what enforcement do you believe would be most effective in preventing those? A lot of the laws around illegal possession are not preventative, they're simply additional charges/sentencing added on after the crime.