I believe better background checks would be a strong start for preventative measures, and i support looking at each person's past in detail, before giving them access to guns. I don't however, for a second think that banning bump stock, "assault", large capacity clips, rifles, shotguns, uzis, or any other variation of weapon or weapon accessory (bar full auto, which is already banned) would solve, or even alleviate the overall problem to any noticeable degree.
as far as control goes, tightening the leash won't solve the issue as effectively as loosening the rope would in these kinds of cases. gun control is, to me, a kneejerk response, until you can clearly list all ways you wish to implement them, and explain how exactly you plan to make them both cost effective, and near foolproof. (will elaborate with examples here if asked, but right now i'm not planning to.). the way i see it, allowing people who are licenced, to carry their guns with them wherever they choose to go (properly holstered and concealed of course), would do more to prevent incidents like mass shootings, than banning guns from any area. removing guns from any area, in a country that allows guns, does nothing but give potential criminals, more potential areas to attack with minimal resistance.
but to go a bit deeper, let's look at the mass shootings that have occurred in the past: https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States
this is a list of every shooting in american schools from the 1800's to today. looking through it, you can see that the most fatal, or high injury (where high in this case, means passing 10 people either injured or dead) of the school shootings, were usually completely unrelated to the kinds of folks you'd normally stop from having guns.
the earliest high fatality/injury shooting being in 1966 by some guy who made it to the top of an observation deck and just started a shooting.
the next one being 1968, where police were the cause,
the next being in 1970, again, police related.
the next one being 1974, where the top student on a rifle team was the culprit, low fatality, high injury only though.
later on, 1984, where a man shot up an elementary school.
1986 saw a rare husband and wife combination, in which a town marshall and his wife capped out at 74 injuries in a hostage situation at an elementary school, though only killing 2 people.
1989 was yet another elementary school, where a man who had no right to own guns, somehow got his hands on one, and killed only 6, though he put 32 in the hospital.
the next one skips all the way to 1992, where a man killed 3 and injured 10. in that same year there was a strange case of 3 different schools having shootings on the exact same day, totaling 11 injuries, but luckily no deaths.
then in 1998, two students killed 5 and injured 10, in a fire alarm they set, then we get to the next of that year, where a lone shooter killed 4 and injured 23.
we then get to columbine, where we see 15 injured and 21 killed, the pair of shooters killing themselves shortly after.
2001 had 2 dead and 13 injured. then to 2005 where we see 10 injured and 7 wounded.
2007 is virginia tech, where 33 deaths and 23 injured holds the absolute record,
then we get to 2008 and see 6 injured, and 21 injured.
then sandy hook in 2012, where he killed his mom, took her guns, and killed 28 people (self included), and injured 2 more.
2017 is next, with a man who killed 6, and injured 18.
the next, was the marshall county shooting this year, where 2 died, and 18 were injured, followed shortly by the parkland shooting on the 14 of February, which saw 17 dead and 14 injured.
looking at that list, i can tell you this much, stricter gun laws, were not going to stop many of these people, hindsight is 20/20, but that 20/20 is useless until it's too late, which is why gun control, at least as far as preventing criminals from getting it, is not as viable a solution as allowing those who wish to arm themselves, to arm themselves. in many of the above shootings, the shooter(s) could have been stopped far earlier, had even a few of the victims been armed. that's not to say arming people is a foolproof solution either, but i cannot see why it would be so unfavorable as it is on many news channels, when looking at past records shows that that ounce of prevention (allowing people who are CC permitted, to CC) would have prevented more of the mass shootings than many, if any, new gun laws could have hoped to.