Like many people, I'm tempted to ask just what the hell is going on with what seems like a phenomenon of "another day, another massacre."

I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to make sense out of something so senseless, but Rick Moran has done an admirable job of analyzing the mass killing in Binghamton and I suggest reading it, as well as the other links in Glenn Reynolds' earlier post.

I thought these observations about media saturation coverage were especially apt:

"Once again the cable news programs are going wall to wall covering the latest mass shooting. All other programming is on hold. I've said this before. When the news shows do this they are guaranteeing the next atrocity. A twisted desire for fame and attention drives some of this. Recall that when the networks were having a problem with streakers at televised football games, they simply turned their cameras away. The problem evaporated. These mass shootings are a little more complicated, and news organizations cannot completely ignore them. But they don't need to stop everything to cover them."

More ominously, as so many people grapple over the unanswerable question of why, as if on cue yet another shooting has captured the media attention, injecting the gun issue in a manner that almost seems bizarrely scripted:

PITTSBURGH (KDKA/AP) --A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said.

Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

Three officers were killed.

Is that supposed to be a suspect profile?

Somehow, I'm not reassured.

MORE: Add this report:

He was also convinced that the government wanted to take away his guns and his freedom.