Alright so I'm going to throw some opinions and hypothetical out their. Don't get too triggered.
The argument of object x kills people too so we need to ban that is asinine. Let me make a comparison. Nukes don't actually kill people, so any normal country should be allowed to have nukes. That sounds crazy, because even if a nuclear missile doesn't kill anyone by itself, it's only purpose is to destroy and kill. Because of that we do not let certain countries have them and have and possibly will enter into a conflict to remove such objects. The purpose of a gun is to inflict harm. Whether that be a coyote, deer, target or person. That is the purpose of a gun. It cannot be compared to a car or a spoon because they have very different purposes.
Also, the argument that we shouldn't do anything because criminals will get them is a weak argument. The shooter reportedly did not show signs of mental illness and according to what I heard obtained the guns legally. You don't need to ban all guns and I don't think you should. What you could do is make them very expensive and make the penalty for any illegal actions involving firearms very stiff. If someone is on the edge and can easily obtain guns at a relatively low risk, there is nothing stopping them. If they are on the edge but guns are extremley expensive, require a driver's ed like course to get them (lasting for many months before you can actuallty own it and take it home), require biannual checks with criminal penalties for misuse it might just be enough to deter the next mass shooter. We more or less do this for vehicles, why can't we do it for firearms?
Or it might not be enough, but it's worth a shot.
Mental health is an invisible killer that should be dealt with, but we also have to focus on the very physical tool that is used as the weapon of poor mental health.
