Partially a response to Captain Splendid's comment in my last journal entry, but it raised wider issues so posted and expanded upon here instead:
Gun culture is a cultural thing, not a legal thing. I don't think modifying the 2nd Amendment would do much other than piss a large section of society off (and as I've said elsewhere, there are moral issues with criminalizing people obeying a basic human instinct.) It might impact the culture, but, as with the War on Drugs, the impact may well be a net negative.
It's also far from clear that gun culture per-se is responsible for mass shootings. But assuming it is, it seems to me that changing the culture wouldn't involve reducing access, so much as changing the way people access guns. The Swiss don't seem to have a problem with gun culture, yet weapons characterized by American politicians as "assault weapons" are not merely commonly privately owned, but the government actively encourages ownership of a specific semi-automatic rifle. The difference is the circumstances in which you get them (which unfortunately includes mandatory military service for all adult males - which won't fly here) and careful control over access to ammunition.
Does the Swiss attitude change the culture though? Probably not. It might make it harder to use the supplied rifle for mass shootings, but as I've explained before, long heavy bulky difficult-to-conceal rifles aren't optimal for that anyway and aren't usually the primary weapon in mass shootings. I would suggest that the Swiss framework for gun ownership is actually a reflection of its culture, not vice versa.
So what is the solution? I'm buggered if I know. One idiot thinks that view combined with opposing the return of AWB is the same as being opposed to fixing the problem, which is kinda like a non-doctor being told they're against someone being treated for cancer because they oppose trepanning being the treatment, but I'd hope my audience in general is smarter than that.
A repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and a blanket ban on all guns with magazines carrying more than, say, three bullets, is a potential solution to mass shootings, as it would make them close to impossible (though let's be clear, they'd still happen very occasionally), but the chances of that happening are zero, and there would be other negative effects caused by an attempt to implement such a law in the US. I'd not be in favor of this. And again, there's the whole culture thing.
At best I can say things like "If we did this practical and reasonable thing, it might not reduce the number of mass shootings, but it might reduce the numbers of deaths in them": for example, discouraging handgun ownership (and encouraging rifles being used in their stead) would probably reduce the overall death count, but it wouldn't reduce the number of mass shootings, it wouldn't attack their causes or prevent them from happening.
Not ideal is it? That's why we need to focus on culture - not gun culture as such, but on the general culture - in particular the attitude that says you can resolve problems with the deaths of others. Want to stop mass shootings? You know I suspect abolishing the death penalty, and having our community, cultural, and political leaders actually start treating war as an abomination rather than a thing we should do to show those pesky Hitlers-of-the-day how "strong" we are, would probably achieve much more.