So are you saying hypothetically speaking if Guns where banned in the US or more highly regulated that it wouldn't reduce the risk of a "crazy" person getting hold of one?
No law passed by Parliament or Act of Congress will ever prevent a shooting incident form occuring, it can however reduce the risk of such an event occuring.
Or would you disagree with that statement?
Or how about this in a democracy the will of the majority is usually carried out.
In that poll it seems the majority are in favour of some reforms to the existing gun laws.
I'm not saying it; that's what the argument from the pro-gun crowd is. To a certain extent I agree. Regarding your italicized statement, I agree with it, but the question is regarding the nature of the laws passed. Congress could pass a law that would lock up everyone one with mental health issues, and that would certainly reduce mass shootings. However, I think most will agree that the cost in terms of money and freedom is too high. Congress could also ban all guns and confiscate them all (ignoring the constitutional issues for the sake of argument), but doing so would be next to impossible and would result in massive conflicts, probably many more deaths than many years of mass shootings, and also high cost in money and freedom. So sure, laws could be passed that would reduce them, but the ones that would obviously work aren't workable. That leaves us with things such as banning high-capacity magazines and assault weapons and such. Such things sound effective to people without experience with guns. Gun owners and shooters, on the other hand, see such things as ineffective and only restrictive to law-abiding citizens. Anyone who shoots knows that with a little practice it takes only a few seconds (some can do it is less than one second with some guns) to change magazines, so there is little to no difference between having three 10-round magazines or one 30-round magazine. They also realize that the term "assault weapon" is meaningless regarding actual function of a weapon. For example, the latest assault weapon ban listed many makes and models of guns that were banned or permitted. The Ruger Mini-14 (functionally equivalent to an AR-15) with a wood stock was exempted, but with a folding stock was banned. There is no functional difference between the two. A particular model of .22 was banned because it was dressed up to look like a military weapon. It's still a .22 and not useful for hunting anything bigger than a squirrel or a tin can and rarely deadly, but it looks scary so it was banned. The problem gun owners have is that such laws are usually, if not always, drawn up by people who know nothing about guns and they end up being laws that will do nothing to solve the problem but will only cause problems for law-abiding citizens.
The Gallup poll was interesting, but not surprising. Frankly, I'm baffled that the background check issue didn't pass. As you point out, pretty much everyone is in favor of it, including most gun owners. It only makes sense. If you look at the poll, you'll see that the things with the most support are the things that gun owners support as solutions to the problem--attacking it from a mental health perspective and measures aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them without restricting the majority of people and increasing security and improving response. Banning things has the lowest support of anything on the list.