>Why so much focus on the tools and not the problem?

Because the tools are part of the problem. Tools aren't neutral, availability influences use, policy influences mentality, and so on.

Fully agreed.

After the modern crane technology was invented there are exponential increased in the number of high rise buildings including the skyscappers.

> addressing the underlying cause would be much more effective

That runs into the first amendment.

It's not that these people are ""crazy"" in a medical sense, they're radicalized. They proceed in an anger-fuelled response to things they believe. Which they believe because other people have told them. Both on the internet and in regular media. From a medical point of view, they're ""functioning"".

It's notable that similar instances outside the US - e.g. the NZ mosque shooter - cite the same sources in their manifestoes.

Getting radicalized also has underlying causes. If everyone was at risk of this most people would be radicals, but of course most people listen to stuff like conspiracy theories and dismiss them quickly enough. Why not treat the problem in a way that focuses on this small part of the population that is susceptible to becoming radicalized? In other words, we know most people don't fall into that, so why treat everyone as a potential radical, instead of seeing what the difference is and trying to close the gap.

> Why so much focus on the tools and not the problem?

What if the tool in question is _made_ for killing? If you think it's just as easy to kill a lot of people with a knife as with a gun, you're in for a surprise.

Regardless of the design of the object, it is the person who uses it. Obviously many guns are not for killing people, and those that are exist for protection. The real question is how would you collect the guns from criminals... they can't even collect their guns now, since I guess they wouldn't just hand them in without a fight. How would a new law solve this problem? Criminals will still hold on to what they have, and such a law would only put innocent people at risk.

> Obviously many guns are not for killing people, [...]

This is utter bullshit. ALL guns are made for _killing_. It's irrelevant who - or what - is being killed. You can of course say the same about knives, but they aren't all the effective.

> The real question is how would you collect the guns from criminals...

That would indeed be a problem, but the priority should be to stop selling weapons to people who obviously doesn't need them. No one needs to own automatic rifles. Australia was able to deal with the problem decades ago.

> Criminals will still hold on to what they have, and such a law would only put innocent people at risk.

Again, utter bullshit. You are under the impression that criminals LIKE to shoot people, like they have nothing better to do. Sure, there will be killings, but criminals are also people; they only fire their weapon if they feel they have to.

If less people have guns, there will be less escalation of conflict. That's why we in Norway strive to have our police force not to carry weapons all the time; we know that if the criminals _know_ that the police they encounter carry weapons, then the criminals will also carry weapons, and people will get killed.

> but the priority should be to stop selling weapons to people who obviously doesn't need them

If the government uses them, why not law abiding citizens? It's not like guns will disappear forever, they will still be in possession by government and anyone who wants to break the law. Regardless, you can never control anything 100%, people will STILL have guns, one way or another, just like anything else that's illegal but still exists.

> but criminals are also people; they only fire their weapon if they feel they have to.

Yes, when they feel like they have to take your stuff.

I think my basic point is that police is not efficient at solving crimes or preventing them, and that is a higher priority than preventing people from owning a gun because they could potentially get radicalized. Let's see crime under control first.

> If the government uses them, why not law abiding citizens?

Crikey, you must be some kind of special stupid.

Are all countries "law abiding" when it comes to use of weapons, you think?

Crazy people are everywhere and yet their destructive impact is greatly reduced if they don't have easy access to ranged deadly weapons.

Right - mass shootings are bad for (criminal) business, and are (at least in the United States) exclusively the domain of radical actors.

Put simply - America has a radicalization vector x mental health x access to rapid-fire guns problem. Take away the rapid-fire component (semi- or fully-automatic weapons) and that would significantly reduce the mass-shootings problem.

As far as the radicalization vector goes, the abolishing of Section 230 protections would be a good start (and I am grossly oversimplifying this).

I have no solutions for the mental health component; there are way too many factors to discuss here, related to insularity, economics, education and outcomes.

Sure, but I don't think that's feasible, and it would just leave those who break the law with the guns they currently have and probably will not be taken away because police would have done that already. The discussion is typically how can we get law abiding citizens to not have guns. This is accusing everyone of being a potential killer, when you might need to protect yourself in places that police might not be quick enough or even available.

> those who break the law with the guns they currently have

Those who break the law regularly have the means & connections to buy a gun illegally.

I very much doubt distressed teenagers will have the money & connections to buy a gun illegally especially on short notice.

Definitely won't stop all crime (just like it doesn't even in countries where guns are illegal) nor resourceful, determined attackers, but would definitely cut down on crazy teenagers doing mass shootings.