This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.
I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."
Except, that's not usually the case.
Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.
Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core
How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?
The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.