Yes we should probably take action, but that doesn't mean banning guns or making tougher gun laws is necessarily the correct action. If you want to compare to other developed countries, Switzerland has a high gun ownership rate (about 45 guns per 100 people vs 88 per 100 for the US) yet their gun homicide rate is one-seventh what it is in the United States. So if it were just about guns one would think that Switzerland would have a lot more gun murders.

Gun deaths in the United States have been declining for the since the 90's in spite of loosening of gun laws. We need to be studying those factors so that we can craft better policy.

Don't get me wrong, clearly if less people have guns less people can shoot other people. But if you really want to improve society you've got to get at the root causes of violence rather than just attacking the tools.

Where did the author conclude there was no need to fix the current problem? My understanding of the article is that there is no clear answer to the problem, given that every potential solution has loads of potential side effects, some of them with the potential to outweigh the positives of the original solution. That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed; just that the fix should be driven by rational thought and understanding rather than emotion.