OK, this is perhaps coming at it from a strange angle, but bear with me.

I was thinking about grief, and why it exists.  In particular, the agonizing grief of losing a loved-one.  It doesn't have an evolutionary benefit and in fact seems a detriment to survival, so why does it exist?

And where I went with that is that it may not have an evolutionary advantage, but it may be the unavoidable result of something that does have an advantage that outweighs the negative consequences.  Like bright light creates shadows or the dangerous snapping of a high-tension bungee cord, the affection we feel for our loved ones has the inevitable 'snapback' of grief when they're gone.

So that leads me to back to this question: is this uptick in mass shootings (when EVERY OTHER indicator of violent crimes is generally falling!) the inevitable 'result' of a self-absorbed, atomized, overindulgent society?  When everyone can have anything they want 24/7, whenever they want, when there are few (if any consequences) for counter-societal behaviors, how much of a stretch is it that some warped individuals decide to 'indulge' in mass violence?  The US is unquestionably the leader in narcissistic, shallow, self-indulgence in the western world.  What happens when a child gets everything they want, all the time?  They turn into a horrible, horrible person, commonly called 'spoiled'.  Why should we believe that's limited to children?

I'm not advocating anything here; I don't want to give up a self-indulgent way of life any more than anyone else.   I admire the Stoics, but honestly don't believe I have the strength of character to be one. (Besides, what's the logical conclusion of that path?  ISIS?)

What I wonder/fear is that the cultural path we're on has socio-/psychological implications consequences that haven't really been addressed seriously.
I'm not sure we ever can address them, as any substantive discussion veers off into politics, power, and protecting whatever indulgence happens to be "my own" priority.

Every time you hear about a shooting, simply replace the (agenda-motivated) gun reference with "killing" or "murder" because the DEVICE USED isn't (or shouldn't) be the POINT. Whether some dude killed two people on-air with a gun, a laser, or a claymore isn't at issue; the point is that some dude killed two people out of a twisted sense of victimization. The point isn't that some guy in Oregon killed 13 people with a GUN, it's that he killed 13 people and wounded many others out of a narcissistic sense of aggrievement. Our society is seeming to produce a prodigious number of narcissistic, practically solipsistic, nihilistic, violence-addicted (mostly men), who have a sociopathic lack of empathy for their fellow humans. One might comment on the atomisation of culture that's allowed that badly-damaged human to develop, despite our "enlightened" culture of compulsive, aggressive promotion of self-worth.

But no, we're focusing on the tools they happen to use.
If people are burning down houses all over town, do we give a crap that they're doing it with gasoline vs. kerosene?
If someone's chopping down all the forests, do we care that they're using a chainsaw or an ax?

Maybe we should focus on what matters?