I shall make my apologies to you, you HAD done your research.
I merely misunderstood that your point was that those laws where on carrying those guns in public.

But as you allready pointed out, A. Beivik (from the Norway shootings) had obtained his weaponry legally.
I don't know the Norwegeon laws on gun control by heart, so I don't know if he was allowed to carry those guns in public, but as long as he was allowed to get his hands on them, he was able to use them.
Guns CAN be hidden from the prying eyes of the law. And even if not, as long as one can own a gun, one can start the killing spree on their own porch.

The south korean shooter is a sad one indeed, being a police officer. But as I've said to many Americans claiming they don't trust the police to be the only ones carrying guns; it's essential to screen every person properly. In my country, there are high standards for becomming a police officer, both physicly and mentally.
But as allready said about Woo Bum-kon [link] , he had an inferiority complex. The very reason for a person to start a killing spree like that, is mental health. The most suicidal sprees (and that's not only with guns) come from countries where both freedom and mental health care are low.
This does mean that America does indeed not hold the top when it comes to killing sprees. But America gets close because they have 2 of the 3 golden ingredients; low gun control and low mental health care. It's a good thing you people still have freedom.

And no, as JollyJack's argument will tell you, banning guns will not stop voilence. I only highly reduces the amount of damage it can do. People will always be voilent and will always find a way to kill each other. But as the most ideal ways are taken away, the more people will survive murder attempts. A knife can still be ran away from.
Also, I would not put much faith in political writers of stories. Best to stick to the facts, not other people's opinions. Especially seeing as Daniel Greenfield, the writer of [link] , has not sticked to the facts on the result of the UK's gun control; [link]

And then finally the bit about Alphen aan de Rijn. I remember that one very clearly, especially since it was unheard of in my country. We do have decent gun control laws here, and that was the biggest killing spree we ever had. 6 people. Want to know the result? The board that allowed van der Vlis to get the guns he used (he had them "legally"), where fired, and by many people held partically responsible. It turns out they had ignored a bad result from a psychological exam.
I hope the newly appointed board will take their job more seriously.

In any case, anyone in my country holding a gun licence is psychologically screened each time they have to renew their licence. A bad result means losing your licence.

(I don't own a gun licence though, so I could very well be legally insane I don't get screened every now and then)