As soon as individuals realize that mainstream media outlets such as the state-funded BBC you cited love to pump such emotionally-inducing stores such as this in order to generate their ad revenue and/or to spread a political message.
After all, we in Europe doesn't have gun rights and yet we are still free...
And you think it's going to stop there?
Its a freakin` game for god sakes....not worth pulling this muk. So you lost big deal no need to shoot the place up over it.
Indeed, obviously there's more to this than a sore loser going postal. Not to mention how the shooter obtained the weapons, and got passed security...assuming there was any.
On top of this, according to the article, the shooter was on psychotropic medications, and probably in a toxic family environment due to divorce listings that stated the said medications. In addition, this cat could be argued to be anti-social, adding to layers of complexity (or not-so) of this situation.
if you're done with your preachiness and talking to the US as if it's not a collection of states each with their own stances, cultures and thoughts on gun control then perhaps you could actually think about why things are like this and why so many peeps are for/against the second amendment.
I will take this a step bit further, and point out that not everyone is interested into being forced into a quasi-Socialist utopia where one's ability to defend themselves is hindered (even more) by The State (which is coercive in nature, no matter the face it chooses to display).
While Gun Control is ideal for some places.
That's assuming people in "some places" do not have violent tendencies, and/or are absolutely meek before the dictates placed upon them. Another way put, a more aggressively motivated person would most likely not care about said lawls, or see the gun control as a challenge to be hacked.
Not to mention, just 'cause one kook goes and does such a thing doesn't mean he speaks for the entire class.
Indeed, and by legislating such behavior would be like punishing the majority of the population in effect for the actions of a few.
So, if you're going to make a case about why the "backwards US" should get rid of their guns, I suggest you actually make it a case and not some speaking from the heart that nobody cares to hear when such a tragedy has happened and would rather do something to better this result.
AKA, telling large swaths of a given population how to live their lives via platitudes, and not giving any care to how people in different geographic areas choose to live their lives.
Its because the NRA has money (whether they want to admit it or not) and they are in a lot of our governments back pockets. Which is why nothing is really being done despite all of us citizens wanting something done.
While I do agree lobby efforts from such organizations are a problem for individual representation, to say that is the only reason why gun 'control' (which I also refer to as gun centralization, which the lawls will still have guns) is bit removed from reality.
The only bad thing now is because it happened at a video game tournament they will use that as an excuse. How we need to control video games and its the video games themselves that are the reason people do this. Which is a load of muk.
Unfortunately, I do see this as a lowball opportunity for a politician(s) to score brownie points from a certain voter-base---not that any of this is a new.
Something I can say is that the government won't be fast automatically. Now, I'm not saying they are going to do anything, but something important to remember is that in our day and age things are expected to be dealt with as soon as they're done, when not always is there a proper strat made or whatnot.
One should be concerned when a bureaucratic organization such as The State becomes efficient. For example, being able to take individual's ability to defend themselves from any form of aggressors ranging from other individuals to lawls serving as loyal order followers to The State to fulfill political objectives. Another one would be a dictator being able to declare war on the spot---like the political left's favorite obsession with Ronald McDonald Trump for example.
Frankly, I think the federalists can help if they put the research into figuring out the causes for these and proper ways to combat them. Maybe holding county groups accountable to put tax payer money to where it's supposed to go, like schools and other things. Or perhaps to help grant to tutors and people to help support those going through hard mental stress or have shown signs of violent action.
I would say privatize everything, but that may be asking a bit much in this day and age. I don't hold any faith in bureaucrats knowing what's best for anyone's individual situation, let alone being genuinely faithful to their constituents. But hey, I suppose we should appeal to one's degree of stockholm syndrome.
I mean, let me ask you a question for some food for thought, since it'd be good for ideas. What could the government do on a federalist level to help combat this problem, that would work for all the states?
Frankly, I don't think this would be even possible. As has been pointed, there are different cultures within each state (some more similar than others). Within each state, we have different counties that host different lifestyles from their neighbors. I could take this further to the individual level, but I think we get the idea. Thus, in order to appeal to the most individuals, I would say succession movements are the way to go, and let people form their own communities with their own dictates.