Will banning guns stop mass shootings?

First of all, I'm not a "gun advocate", so maybe I'm not the right person to be answering this question. I don't own a gun, I don't particularly like guns, but I don't believe that guns are necessarily the problem. I think that if someone wants to own or use something that is completely banned or completely illegal, regardless of the penalties threatened, if they are motivated enough they will get them.

As an example, I'd point to the so-called "war on drugs". Marijuana, cocaine, oxycodone, methamphetamine, extasy, heroin and all varieties of dangerous recreational drugs are illegal, punishable by fine, imprisonment or both; they are relatively safe when used intelligently but are extremely dangerous when in the wrong hands - and no law or punishment has been successful in curbing their use. (Well, that's an opinion - it's hard to say whether or not they'd be used more or less if they were made legal, but I believe that usage would be about the same.

Either way, they proliferate in our society, and it's pretty easy to get anything you want on the street, legal or otherwise). As far as I know, no motive has been publicized for the San Bernardino shootings, but we do know that the shooters were highly motivated and this was an attack that was planned for quite some time. The fact that the weapons they used were purchased legally in the US was definitely a convenience for them - but if they had not been able to buy them over the counter there are plenty of other avenues for obtaining them illegally.

In other words, they did not say, "Hmm - now that we have these guns, let's go shoot a bunch of people!" Rather, they said, "We have an urge to kill people - how will we do it?" In the unlikely event that they were not able to obtain weapons legally or illegally they could have taken the route of the Boston Marathon bombers, of Timothy McVeigh, or the first World Trade Center bombers ... It was not the guns that caused the attack.

Another thing to consider - and I don't mean to diminish the horror of these mass shootings or of gun violence in general, but the fact is that gun violence and gun homicide are at their lowest levels since the early 1990's; that taken directly from FBI and DOJ statistics. My point here is not that the shootings aren't awful, but that the attention they are getting make them seem like an epidemic, which they are not. By the same statistics, gun ownership is at the highest level it has been since 1993 - while gun-related homicides are down by almost 40%.

All of that said, I am an advocate of safe gun ownership, a closer look at the laws and processes we have regarding mental illness, and far less anger and opposition being presented by our leaders. I've lived in this country for 60 years, and I have never seen an administration promote partisan adversity and an internal "common enemy" the way this one does. I have never seen a President - Republican or Democrat, advocate ANYTHING other than conversation and compromise with the minority party - but this one outwardly declares Republicans as the enemy, or close to it.

Mental illness, class envy, international terrorism, partisan anger over solvable issues, hatred of religion, hatred of atheism, hatred of liberalism, hatred of conservatism - all of THESE contribute to mass shootings. It's the motive, not the means.

Gun insurance to cover the cost of mass shootings.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.