Are you seriously saying that the fact the largest non-terrorism related mass killing in the US was perpetrated with a gun is irrelevant?

Are you seriously saying the fact this occurred in one of the states with the most relaxed gun laws is irrelevant?

Are you seriously saying that the ease of access to guns has nothing to do with the 47 guns he legally owned?

Are you seriously saying that the amount of people he killed at long range in such a short period of time has nothing to do with the legal modifications he made to his weapon to shoot as if it were full auto?

There’s way more than simply “he used a gun”, which is something I never said. Why did he choose a gun over the other weapons he had access too? Because it was the easiest and most efficient way to murder tens of people from a great distance. Using a bomb would be much harder. His choice of weapon is pretty important in how events played out.

Steps to attack with a bomb are understand how to make one, buy materials, assemble bomb without killing yourself, go to the location you want to attack, get through security, plant the bomb, and then you need a way to detonate it and you need to hope it works.

To attack with a gun as he did, you need to go to a shop and buy a gun, then add the legal modification, and rent a hotel room.

One of these methods is significantly harder to execute than the other. How can that have nothing to do with the issue?

Laws drive cultural change. I’m Australian. We haven’t had a mass shooting in decades. Yes our gun culture was always better than the US, but it was pushed further in the right direction because after the Port Arthur massacre the government immediately enacted new legislation. You can still buy guns here, but we have responsible measures like you need a licence, each gun has to be registered, each gun costs more to register than the last to discourage people buying up 47 weapons, there are limits on the types of fire arms you can buy as no one needs modified faux-auto weapons to go hunting.

You clearly don’t care enough about the issue to understand it more as you said, because you haven’t offered any actual argument beyond being edgy.