The problem with the argument of gun control to stop mass shootings is that it lacks logical continuity, there are places where it has reduced gun violence but there are other places where it has increased it at a much larger scale than those places where it has worked, there is also the historical problems gun control has had, wich are many more and worse than those examples where it has worked in current times.
Another problem is that mass shooting or regular homicides will also require banning several items that in different contexts will be more effective than a gun, for example a flamethrower, a pipe bomb, a car or even a knife in a dark closed space like a disco, so here we see again a lack of logical continuity on what will have to be banned or how will it be regulated.
Gun regulation or the banning of specific weapon types, does not take into consideration what the weapon is actually made for, a pistol or an automatic rifle in this context will vary in range but the real problem is where and how it is used.This weapons were made to shoot incoming enemies and to sustain fire, so even high capacity magazines although they will increase their potential in mass shootings they will remain as effective as the context in which they are used, close space, high ground, lack of cover and lack of escape routes.
The government tyranny situation does not take into consideration that modern states are bound by other states, this is the first wall they encounter unlike those in the past, this allows them to disarm their citizens since tyranny and invasion is prevented by other states intervention , still this are weapons monopolies at a larger scale and they have lead to unfavorable conditions for those unarmed and the conditions that allow them to do this can change.
A world without weapons will require enough checks and balances between government, corporations and private citizens that they will not be capable to make any type of weapon ever, hidden somewhere.This problem will continue to grow with new technology, and so it’s unlikely that it would be possible to keep track of everything and most likely undesirable as the cost will outweigh the benefits, the construction could take place somewhere hidden as it has happened in the past during war and peacetime, trying to accomplish this will be exponentially more difficult and dangerous, since at any given time a cascade effect might occur.
A solution to this problem could be construction and security regulations, making the cities, villages and public places a deterrent by themselves, treating this actions as an accident or natural disaster like a fire, for example: bouncers and armories in discos or designated public places, escape routes (a fire will be equally or more devastating than a shooter) hard cover like pillars and walls indoors and outdoors, bumpers, alarms in windows and open public security cameras.
The solution within the city system itself , will reduce the damage when this attacks do happen, along with the other benefits on accidents and regular crime, it will also reduce the need for security checks for certain weapons or items as the system functions like a deterrent, finaly open access CCTV broadcast will remove security monopolies by state agents, having only the function of recording the action and the routes.
In conclusion weapons bans, brings more problems than solutions, all the arguments for it have happened against it in the past and present with worst consequences, they lack logical continuity for the banning process on what will be considered a weapon and in what context or how far the bans it will have to go, finally regulations attack a type of weapon that has little relevance on what it can actually do, how? and where? it will be more or less effective compared with something else.