Gun control is necessary to avoid a lot of the smaller scale problems - accidental gun deaths, suicide, violent revenge, robberies, etc.
But for anything serious like terrorist attacks, it won't make much of a difference. Guns come in through criminal networks anyway (as in Europe). Norway has gun control laws, yet Breivik was still able to kill nearly 80 people regardless. Vehicles have proven to be decent weapons to kill many people with. 9/11 used airplanes and improvised knives to kill thousands.
Gun control will not fix the underlying issues behind mass shootings and while discussing it has to be done, it won't make the problems causing things like this to happen stop.
>Gun control will not fix the underlying issues behind mass shootings and while discussing it has to be done, it won't make the problems causing things like this to happen stop.
But reduce the overall deaths.
France has pretty strict gun controls laws which have not proven to be much of a protection against terrorism, who used AK47, explosives or simply trucks to cause mass casualties.
We don’t know how different the situation would be if France didn’t have the current regulations, but I personally think the death toll would be higher. For sure you cannot completely remove the risk of mass killing, but you can make it more expensive/difficult for attackers to do a lot of victims.
If someone does not have access to guns, it's harder to do something like this. It gives time to think again. Organizing different attacks gives law enforcement a chance to catch someone planning it beforehand.
HN is not the right forum to discuss this in detail, so I won't go further into this. But it's better to think about this than to follow Cloudflares lead.