You make a pretty big jump from that first to second paragraph.  Suddenly you go from "doesn't make it go away" to completely ineffective.

We ban rape.  Do we ban it because if we do nobody will rape anyone ever again?  No, but it will reduce the amount of rape that happens.  Same principle here.  Won't eliminate it completely, but could very well limit these types of incidents.

Take the recent shooting.  We have a guy with mental problems who had access to his mom's guns in the house.  So, what if there weren't guns in the house.  Would he have been able to obtain them through illegitimate means?  Without people who know him getting suspicious? Stricter gun control would have certainly made the weapons harder to maintain, and the harder it is to get from idea to action the less likely it is to happen.

Banning rape is banning behavior.. Prohibiting weapons is prohibition of objects.  As we all know prohibition doesn't work.  And as you pointed out mental condition is the-problem. (specifically psychiatric dope). Why you choose prohibition instead of reinstating the useoff mental hospitals is perverse IMO.  Every shooting spree had psychiatric drugs being forced on the killer 

Well I wouldn't expect to change anyone's mind.  Something to think about. 

Three things:

1. It is illegal to kill people, just like rape is illegal. Do we ban penises? Of course no, lol. 

2. The argument on the other side is a matter of sacrifice not giving us enough in return and will give us more trouble in the long run. You mentioned rape, well the United States has quite an average rape per 100,000 in the list of first-world countries, less than Australia and Britain. I'd think it is because we have weapons to protect ourselves, not only guns, but other weapons as well, some very preventative. However; the biggest issue is sacrificing something which protects us even further, on a sociological level, from a tyrannical government and the entire premise of why the Second Amendment exists, explicitly. 

3. Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. If "assault weapons" are banned there would be no change, because "assault weapons" is a coined term to mean all weapons made from modern material with certain safety (yes, safety - such as easier control) features. There are other weapons that would be just as effective. Even more troublesome is that legal owners of these weapons will be affected, and they will lose their right to self-defense, without any proper solution to the homicide crime. 

If stricter laws prevent these occurances then we would not have noticed Breivik's killing last year, and the one in Germany in 2009 by that teenager. Stricter laws do very little other than impose new problems on the people. One either stands for liberty and a free-society or one stands against liberty and for a nanny states (or even worse - a totalitarian state.) The more we allow the federal government into our lives, the more power they are to weasel even further into our lives and the more easily they can destroy our lives. States are almost certainly never interested in the security of their people as much as the people are, and this is substantiated by history. 

Cool I'm gonna have to check that out too, very interesting stuff. 

If it can happen in Germany it can happen anywhere. Disarming citizens is the first step to government control.

I hope my concern is being understood here. Unless those who support the second amendment can come up, and argue effectively, for solutions to reduce the amount of these issues (and get them to work), the political climate is going to result in assault weapons bans, and the second amendment being threatened. This is not an issue you can argue merely intellectually about, but a practical issue that needs to be addressed or things will change, I don't see the NRA's argument that violent videogames and arming schools is sufficient answers either:
http://myfox8.com/2012/12/21/read-the-entire-nra-statement-transcript-on-conn-school-shooting/

And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to
conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting
shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm,
Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one:
it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come
my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or
didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?
Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho”
and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on
“Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that
portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have
the nerve to call it “entertainment.”

Is what the NRA argued sufficient? Is the problem violent videogames, or the fact that schools aren't armed?

We all know prohibition doesn't work?  Not really.  We know alcohol prohibition didn't work, but that doesn't mean that no form of prohibition will ever work.  Besides, few people are advocating for a complete ban on guns, but more intelligent policies on how we screen/what kinds of clips are available etc.

I chose to address gun laws because someone asked that question.  Treatment of mental disorders is absolutely another facet of this issue that should be looked into.  That being said, completely ignoring the gun aspect of the equation means leaving a large part of the problem completely unaddressed.

"Three things:

1. It is illegal to kill people, just like rape is illegal. Do we ban penises? Of course no, lol. 

2. The argument on the other side is a matter of sacrifice not giving us enough in return and will give us more trouble in the long run. You mentioned rape, well the United States has quite an average rape per 100,000 in the list of first-world countries, less than Australia and Britain. I'd think it is because we have weapons to protect ourselves, not only guns, but other weapons as well, some very preventative. However; the biggest issue is sacrificing something which protects us even further, on a sociological level, from a tyrannical government and the entire premise of why the Second Amendment exists, explicitly. 

3. Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. If "assault weapons" are banned there would be no change, because "assault weapons" is a coined term to mean all weapons made from modern material with certain safety (yes, safety - such as easier control) features. There are other weapons that would be just as effective. Even more troublesome is that legal owners of these weapons will be affected, and they will lose their right to self-defense, without any proper solution to the homicide crime. 

If stricter laws prevent these occurances then we would not have noticed Breivik's killing last year, and the one in Germany in 2009 by that teenager. Stricter laws do very little other than impose new problems on the people. One either stands for liberty and a free-society or one stands against liberty and for a nanny states (or even worse - a totalitarian state.) The more we allow the federal government into our lives, the more power they are to weasel even further into our lives and the more easily they can destroy our lives. States are almost certainly never interested in the security of their people as much as the people are, and this is substantiated by history. "

1.  My point was that we don't institute bans and restrictions to completely eliminate them, but to limit them.  Feel free to take things out of context though.

2.  Then we can better define assault weapons to more accurately reflect what we want to limit.  Do people really 30 round clips to defend themselves?  The connection between rape and weapons is unfounded.

3.  In the US there were about 56.3 murders per 100,000 people.  Germany?  9.7.   These aren't all gun homocides, and of course there are other factors to take into consideration.  BUT pointing to an incident in Germany and saying "see!  They have gun violence too, so restrictions don't work!" doesn't work.  We also have to take into account the frequency and severity of incidents.  Like I said, nothing we do will completely eliminate these incidents, but they may limit them.

The NRA aren't for the Second Amendment, to be honest. They're for making money. So many times have they "compromised" on gun control legislation because they had got a deal out of it. GOA (Gun Owners of America) are much better. As for the solution, it has to do with these "free-gun zones" and their removal. At least give the schools a choice so the criminals don't know which is a "free-gun zone" and which is not. As for video game control, that is a violation of the first amendment, and equally intrusive as gun-control. The solution isn't a federal one, it's a state/local one and one rooted in the people.

@richardhutnik Why isn't arming teachers a sufficient solution? Back when teachers (AND STUDENTS in Middle/High school) were armed these things didn't happen. Kids brought their rifles to school when my great-grandmother was a young girl. They would go hunting afterwards or practice target shooting in their physical education class.

Gun control is only one piece of the puzzle. Education is second. Parenting is third.....more ideas are welcome.
Dangerous people will allways find a way to harm others. but at least make it difficult for them to do so.
People who say that Guns are but tools, yeah that may be true. but if you did not have a gun in the first place. they cant shoot anybody. And if it's hard to get a gun. then it will take more and more time for someone to commit the mass murder. Thus enhancing the chance of getting to that person before he does it.
Why do people need guns in the first place? Guns and bombs have but only one goal. KILLING. Only one reason needed for it to be banned. Why sell KILLING tools. it hurts the economy and the society more then it does good.

I just get so angry (these days around christmas the most) with all the stories about hate and killing.
Maybe i should just kill everybody and nobody will be in pain anymore.

Some of you are unbelievable
in my country guns are illegal for regular people a theres barely any homicide caused by firearms