Originally Posted by
Oracle
Look at statistics on mass shootings in the U.S. and you'll find that increased gun control would severely inhibit the average mass shooter. Since 1966, there have been 153 mass shootings (4 or more dead, excluding shooter). 292 guns have been used during those shootings. Over half of them, 167 of them, were purchased legally by the shooter (admittedly, this number is inflated quite a bit by the Vegas shooter, who had 24 guns all owned legally). Many of the guns that were illegally obtained were stolen from legal owners, or were illegal purchases that were allowed because of shoddy enforcement of existing gun control laws. There are also a few cases where the shooter was denied purchasing a gun, so they bought all the parts for a gun and assembled it themselves.
By reducing the availability of legally owned guns, you naturally reduce the number of guns that are available to perform a mass shooting.
Also, even if gun control fails to lower mass shooting rates, but lowers overall gun violence, that's still an effective law. Over 1,000 people have died in a mass shooting since 1966. 2,000 people have died from guns since the start of 2018, twice the death count over 3 months compared to over 50 years.
It's unfortunate, but the number of people dying every year to guns is substantially greater than any mass shooting, but it's only when a bunch of those deaths happen at once at the hands of one person do people really start paying attention in the general public.
Alright, so hypothetically, more effective and strict gun control laws are put into place. As we've seen in some parts of Europe, acid attacks have been increasing substantially and 2017 was the worst year yet, and at the current rate would only continue to rise. Also, if i'm not mistaken they have stricter gun control laws than the United States. What would be stopping a perpetrator from making something along the lines of a mustard gas attack or a propane bomb which would be easier to obtain than a gun at the time, and has the possibility to kill even more than a trained shooter if it bypasses security? Building a bomb or chemical weapon doesn't take much effort into researching or is too difficult to make realistically. Investigators that found the undetonated bomb say that it had the potential to kill hundreds more. So if stricter laws were put into place, what would stop people from using other means to harm?