Mass shootings are tragic. However, one should generally not let rare events determine policy. One idiot tries to carry a bomb in his shoe, and suddenly millions of people are forced to waste billions of dollars worth of time taking their shoes off at the airport. That money would've been far better spent saving lives or improving quality of life in other ways.
Similarly, many people are now calling for a ban on guns. Yet death from mass shootings are extremely rare. You're far more likely to die driving to the grocery store than you are to die in a mass shooting. Rare causes of death, even if they're highly telegenic, do not deserve a lot of attention and funding:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/
http://gawker.com/you-will-not-die-in-a-mass-shooting-1746158444
In addition, a gun ban in the US will be about as effective as bans on drugs, prostitution, and alcohol. That is to say, not at all. And like other prohibition attempts, gun bans will likely cause far more harm in their own right than the harms they're nominally intended to prevent.
Rather than waste tremendous amounts of time, money, and political capital on futile gun bans, consider instead devoting attention to programs like Ceasefire which have been proven to dramatically reduce violent deaths:
"But for the previous two years, McBride had been spreading awareness about Ceasefire, a nearly two-decades-old violence-reduction strategy that had upended how police departments dealt with gang violence. Under Ceasefire, police teamed up with community leaders to identify the young men most at risk of shooting someone or being shot, talked to them directly about the risks they faced, offered them support, and promised a tough crackdown on the groups that continued shooting. In Boston, the city that developed Ceasefire, the average monthly number of youth homicides dropped by 63 percent in the two years after it was launched. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “what works” website for crime policy had a green check mark next to Ceasefire, labeling it “effective”—the highest rating, and one few programs received. "
https://newrepublic.com/article/124445/beyond-gun-control
Similarly, many people are now calling for a ban on guns. Yet death from mass shootings are extremely rare. You're far more likely to die driving to the grocery store than you are to die in a mass shooting. Rare causes of death, even if they're highly telegenic, do not deserve a lot of attention and funding:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/
http://gawker.com/you-will-not-die-in-a-mass-shooting-1746158444
In addition, a gun ban in the US will be about as effective as bans on drugs, prostitution, and alcohol. That is to say, not at all. And like other prohibition attempts, gun bans will likely cause far more harm in their own right than the harms they're nominally intended to prevent.
Rather than waste tremendous amounts of time, money, and political capital on futile gun bans, consider instead devoting attention to programs like Ceasefire which have been proven to dramatically reduce violent deaths:
"But for the previous two years, McBride had been spreading awareness about Ceasefire, a nearly two-decades-old violence-reduction strategy that had upended how police departments dealt with gang violence. Under Ceasefire, police teamed up with community leaders to identify the young men most at risk of shooting someone or being shot, talked to them directly about the risks they faced, offered them support, and promised a tough crackdown on the groups that continued shooting. In Boston, the city that developed Ceasefire, the average monthly number of youth homicides dropped by 63 percent in the two years after it was launched. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “what works” website for crime policy had a green check mark next to Ceasefire, labeling it “effective”—the highest rating, and one few programs received. "
https://newrepublic.com/article/124445/beyond-gun-control