It's not the gun.

I can tell.

Which would be totally f**king fine when compared to ar15s not that anyone wants to ban all guns ffs

Well, just as many people die from knives, swords, blunt objects, acid, or just anything in the U.K. And yes, they do want to ban all guns.

Youre right. Just as many people die in total over a huge amount of time. But if we can take the mass shooting losses sustained per incident, reduce them to knife losses sustained per incident and measure that over a year or so, dont you think we'd see a reduction in death?

Yes, we would. But how would we manage to do that? Banning guns leaves the law abiding citizen with no means of self defense, and the same way people manage to obtain drugs, belligerent people are going to obtain firearms via illegal processes.
So, we need to identify the leading causes of shootings and gun deaths, (not the gun, the mental part) and try to limit those. Also, perhaps passing a law that all gun owners must be registered with an up to date medical record of mental issues.

Making something illegal makes it harder to obtain. Lets look at drugs. I can stroll on down to the dispensary and grab me some weed right now. In 1980, i could not. I would have to break laws which causes hurtles some wont jump over. For those that try, there is the chance to run into law enforcement. See how theres still a reduction in deaths via strict gun laws?

These people are already intent on killing people, you think they would give a crap about some gun restriction. That would only hurt gun owners.

The point of my last comment was tp illustrate that there are varying degrees of "intent" i.e. 'I'm gonna at all costs' vs 'I'm gonna, but ive never broken the law before so i have no way to.' Point being that laws restrict incidents to the few who are willing to break the law (a significantly smaller group) than having no laws at all

What about metal d**dos?