Reflection Joe Nocera argues in his New York Times op-ed column “Guns and Mental Illness” that it should be more difficult for people, rather than the mentally-ill, to attain a firearm due to a recent mass shooting in California. Last month, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a shooting spree in Isla Vista, California after emailing a 140-page manifesto to his parents. Nocera recapitulates the terrifying tale of two parents racing to California only to have their worst fears confirmed: Elliot had killed six people before committing suicide from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Elliot had a long history with depression and had never been admitted to a psychiatric facility. It is unclear whether Elliot should have been admitted to a psychiatric clinic. In particular, Elliot did not have a criminal history. He was simply a sequestered adolescent with poor social skills. In other words, Elliot had a right to purchase a gun. Mass shooters tend to meet the profile of socially awkward males. Statistically, however, very few socially awkward males actually commit mass shootings. It would be unlawful to deny males who meet this profile access to a firearm. Indeed, Nocera notes that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that mentally-ill people who are neither violent nor dangerous cannot be forced into an institution. Therefore, Nocera concludes that we should make it more difficult for everyone to attain a gun. The author has a clear liberal bias. The column was an op-ed piece, so it should therefore be unsurprising that the article has an ideological spin. Liberals tend to call for more government intervention and regulation. The author references a single mental health official, Dr. Torry, to reinforce the view that mentally-ill people are granted to much freedom. Nocera applies the liberal ideology to the problem of gun control by arguing we ought to prevent more people, rather than a select few, from attaining guns. Such a proclamation would likely require the state and federal government to regulate the production and distribution of guns. The problem of gun control applies to the public as a whole. As more mass shootings occur, more and more people are demanding a solution to the problem of gun control. Tighter guns laws would make it more difficult for everyone to attain a firearm. The article effects California directly since it derives conclusions from state laws and recent events. In particular, Elliot’s background gave state officials no reason to believe that the young-adult was mentally-ill. The author concludes that there are far more mentally-ill people than California realizes. Rather than focusing our attention on the mentally-ill, Nocera suggests we ought to focus our attention on the population as a whole. I do not agree with the author’s position. More gun regulation will not prevent criminals from attaining guns. Rather, it merely pushes gun distribution into the black market where background checks exist in a vacuum. In other words, mass shooters are much more threatened by an armed society rather than an unarmed society. The same reasoning holds true with respect to gun free zones. If gun free zones actually worked, why do mass shootings, as was Elliot’s case, consistently occur on gun free zones? These regulations worsen, rather than better, the safety of society. The problem of gun control causes a proverbial debate between liberals and conservatives. A recent mass shooting in California casts doubt that background checks are capable of preventing the mentally-ill from acquiring guns. Mr. Nocero argues we should make it more difficult for everyone to attain guns. The problem is that the author fails to explain how making it more difficult for everyone, rather than the mentally-ill, to attain guns will reduce mass shootings. In fact, recent events suggest that gun regulation actually escalates gun violence. In short: gun laws are flawed.