Don't take this as an absolute endorsement of a more liberal attitude to guns more as an observation about the consequences of strict gun control:
In November, Interpol’s secretary general, Ron Noble, noted there are two ways to protect people from such mass shootings: “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves [should be] so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
Noble sees a real problem: “How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere.”
“It makes citizens question their views on gun control,” he noted. “You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past, with an evolving threat of terrorism?’”
This isn't some bearded, overweight, pick-up driving, jar-drinking redneck speaking but the man in charge of Interpol. So perhaps we should listen to what he's saying - if we are to have strict controls over guns how do we make 'soft targets' (schools, shopping malls, beaches, etc.) safer?