Um its extremely simply to explain.
Restrictions increase the difficulty of access.
Decreased access leads to generally decreased demand.*
Decreased demand leads to decreased ownership.
Decreased ownership leads to less mass shootings (as well as less cultural fixation and worship of guns)
*Generally if you place impediments to people trying to get what they want you will decrease their actual getting what they want (see voter ID laws, prior authorizations for medical services used by insurance companies to keep doctors and patients from getting certain services, etc etc. The fact is if people have to work for something, whilst some will take the extra steps, a lot of people will just drop out). That's why if you say want people to get vaccines or exercise or pay their taxes on time or save for retirement and etc, governments have to focus on policies remove the impediments.
From a simple point of view:
https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...ther-school-shootingbut-whos-counting/553412/
Some members of Congress have publicly lamented Wednesday’s shooting, emphasizing that it’s just the latest example of why political action on gun reform is so critical. Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who was in office at the time of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, said to Congress in a floor speech Wednesday: “We are responsible for a level of mass atrocity that happens in this country with zero parallel anywhere else. As a parent, it scares me to death that this body doesn't take seriously the safety of my children, and it seems like a lot of parents in South Florida are going to be asking that same question later today.”
"Australia hasn't had a fatal mass shooting since 1996. Here's what it did":
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...shooting-since-1996-heres-what-did/340345002/
The country made sweeping gun control measures after a man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic weapon in a popular tourist area of Port Arthur, in Tasmania. Weeks after the April 1996 tragedy, the country and its states began banning rapid-fire guns to tamp down on mass shootings and then offered to buy the prohibited firearms.
Regarding gun control in Australia:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent.
Among other things, America's problems include:
1. Strong gun lobbies, which pull a lot of political strings
2. A national connection to guns, along with second-amendment rights
3. States/Federal government won't (currently) buy back guns
There have been a few gun buyback programs in the United States here & there, but not without issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#United_States
There were some interesting side effects:
What is believed to have been the first gun buyback program was in Baltimore in 1974. Gun homicides and assaults actually rose during the two-month program, and it was deemed a failure, though no reason for the crime rate increase was given.[8] Similar programs followed in other cities, including some cities that repeated their programs. However, no evaluation of such programs were published until 1994, after three researchers analyzed a 1992 buyback in Seattle, Washington. The study found that the "effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown."[9]
For two months in 1974, the Baltimore Police Department ran what is believed to have been the first gun buyback program in the U.S. Police commissioner Donald Pomerleau, not known as an advocate for strict gun control, reportedly came up with the idea while at a funeral for an officer who was shot in the line of duty. Operation PASS (People Against Senseless Shootings) paid a $50 "bounty" for surrendered guns and $100 for tips leading to the confiscation of illegal guns. Some bounty seekers attempted to game the system by buying cheap, new guns that retailed for $21.95 and then trying to turn them in. In all, the police collected 13,500 of firearms - mostly handguns - at a cost of over $660,000. However, the city's already high gun homicide and assault rates actually increased during the program, for which police officials offered no explanation.[8]
At an August 2012 buyback, the Detroit Police Department paid $16,820 for 365 guns, including six assault weapons and a few sawed-off shotguns. The guns were accepted "no questions asked" at a church where members had collected $18,000 to help get dangerous weapons off the street. People could receive from $50 to $100 for unloaded, operational weapons. Gun-carrying protesters offered those in line more money not to turn in their firearms.
The city of Seattle has experimented with Gun Buy Back Programs since the early 1990s.[21] Seattle's 1992 gun buyback was initiated in response to a string of shootings in a local neighborhood. The buyback program was watched with great interest given the local demographic and the generally positive public support for the buyback from residents of Seattle and the surrounding area. A public health survey titled "Money for Guns" was conducted and while it concluded that no statistically significant result was produced on Seattle's gun crime or gun death ratio, the report maintained that a larger buyback program would be sure to yield positive results.[22] Over 20 years later Seattle would again make headline for its bold gun buyback program in 2013, but perhaps not for the reasons the programs sponsors and organizers would have liked. While the program, could be considered a success, collecting more than 700 guns, handing out almost $70,000 in gift cards and even netting a Stinger missile launcher tube (minus the missile),[23] the program also had a widely unanticipated effect from the local gun buying community. Hundreds of gun buyers showed up to the event seeking to offer cash for valuable antiques or functioning second hand firearms. The lack of any need for background check in transactions involving private firearms sales turned the city sponsored event into an open air gun bazaar.[24] Since then Seattle has not suffered alone in its gun buyback program woes, with other cities experiencing similar problems, whether it be private sales or local gun owners taking advantage of lucrative gift card offers to unload rusted or non-functioning firearms onto the police.[25]
What that says to me, from a simplistic point of view, is that in order for real change to occur, it has to come from the top, not this piecemeal stuff, because then it's too easy to argue that only the bad guys have guns, so why should the good guys give them up? In Australia, while gun killings didn't go away, the massacres did:
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
Per the other article above, one study said that the Australian buy-back program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20%. Based on the facts that (1) it came from the top, (2) the government did a mandatory buy-back, and (3) there have been no mass shootings in 14 years since that happened, I would say it was pretty dang effective. Note that Australia did not ban ALL guns, just certain semi-automatic guns & self-loading rifles and shotguns, and also implemented stricter licensing & registration requirements. Compare that to America, where we have apparently had 25 school shootings since Columbine:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...-school-shootings-since-columbine-live-on-air
Based on Australia's track record, this seems like a solvable problem.