Largely removing violent lunatics from society is a way tougher problem than largely removing guns - there are good blueprints to follow re: removing guns, like Australia and the UK. The big impediment here is that guns are deeply engrained in American culture, plus an amendment to the constitution from the late 1700s that is arguably very out of date today. I do understand why America won’t ban or heavily restrict guns, but I strongly disagree with it, and find it sad that Americans are willing to let so many innocents die out of a mix of “don’t take my toys” and “anti-government paranoia.”
Depending on how you count, here's some support for this (argument against at the end):
A number of European countries has or has had large numbers of actual assault rifles (not the semi automatic ones that are legal in USA) distributed in the population.
Switzerland, Austria and Norway are three countries I know have or have had this.
Neither has had this school/church/mall shooting thing that USA has.
On the other hand these weapons weren't sold, they were distributed only after mandatory training.
In other words, if availability of guns were really the most important factor, then wouldn't we expect Europe to have a similar number of attacks but conducted with knives, cars, etc? Do you think there are a number of europeans out there with the desire to commit these acts, and would do so if they only could get a gun more easily? I'm skeptical.
That isn't to say I think gun control would hurt, just that I see a deeper problem it wouldn't solve.