This is pretty much it: there's no good solution. Not because there aren't ideas, but because one side of the issue just isn't willing to discuss them.
You could offer a buy-back program, but enough people would cling to their guns to render it only moderately effective. You could ban semiautomatic weapons, but then people would complain mere handguns cannot protect their family from criminals. You could ban the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but then people would oppose the government deciding who can and cannot purchase guns. You can go on and on, and there's always an excuse. It doesn't matter if children are murdered at school, kids are murdered in a nightclub, or concertgoers are murdered in the Vegas Strip.
Police recovered 42 guns from the guy's hotel and residence, and he used 23 of them last night. Is that not absurd? Is an arsenal truly necessary to protect your home?
Look, I'm not claiming to know the best solution, but enough people here and elsewhere aren't even willing to start the conversation. That's their right. But at the end of the day, these same people need to admit that they're okay with periodic massacres. Because that is the consequence.
I am good with certain limits, as are most people.
For instance: Mentally ill people who re a danger to themselves or others should not own or possess a weapon. A mental health/medical professional or court should make that initial determination and due process rights should be preserved entirely. I'm also good with certain criminals, including those who are convicted of domestic violence, being unable to own or possess a firearm.
Conversation begun.
Now, are you OK with anyone owning any gun under any circumstance?
Absolutely.
But fully automatic rifles have been banned for decades, and we've accepted that. All kinds of weapons are okay for military use, yet banned for civilians. So who draws that line, and when does it ever get reconsidered?
It is constantly reconsidered. Every election. Every time a vote occurs in legislative bodies across the nation. Every time something like this happens.
I'd venture to say that most people who own or advocate for guns to be legal are reasonable people who are fine with certain limits that preserve due process and are not truly for anyone owning any gun no matter what.
I'd venture to say many who want gun control - perhaps even most - are reasonable people who are fine with people protecting themselves with firearms and do not truly want to ban guns entirely.
The fringes get the most attention. Both sides are afraid to concede anything lest the fringes rush into the vacuum to fill it and take things that much further.
I don't know all the answers, but talking past one another isn't helping either side unless one likes the status quo.
I wish there was a magic answer that would keep this from ever happening. That's not possible. I'd settle for greatly reducing their frequency.
And there is much more to the problem than guns.
We treat mental health like it doesn't matter to the state or its citizens. We abandon the mentally ill and leave them to fend for themselves at our own demise. Whether that was an issue here isn't the point. Everyday crime is a problem in this regard as well.
I still don't believe you'll ever get rid of this type thing unless we go back to the pre-gun era, and that ain't in the cards.