The worst argument which I have heard about guns and mass shootings in the the aftermath of this last crisis: "Shootings happen more frequently in gun free zones, therefore we need to eliminate gun free zones and allow gun owners to carry their guns anywhere they please as a deterrent."
Correlation is not causation.
Intentional shootings happen in these gun-free zones because these zones are heavily populated venues such as schools, malls, theaters, or parks, which makes them prime locations for people intending to harm as many people as possible in a short period of time. Also, considering that many of these shooters wind up ending their murderous sprees by shooting themselves, it hardly seems likely that they intentionally choose places where they think people will be unarmed. They are entering a quick blaze towards their own deaths. They are unconcerned about the outcome or possibility of facing other armed people. And, the fact that they often are wearing bullet-proof vests implies that they sense they will be shot at by somebody, whether it is a security officer or a police officer.
Their actions give no indication that they have spent any time pondering, or that they care about, whether a venue is officially labeled "gun-free".
My comments have nothing to do with whether gun control laws should be stricter, or not, but just to point out the absurdity of that particular argument. No one should be able to say those things with a straight face, or be taken seriously when making such an argument.