Ideally it'd be both, but which do you think is more likely to be implemented.

This issue started because of Prop 47 in California

spread via SM to multicultural UK cities

It's not directly comparable - it's like the mass shootings phenomenon in the US. Yes, far too liberal gun control is what offers the means to cause so much destruction so easily, but guns are not the cause, the real root of the problem is cultural. If you banned guns in the US tomorrow it wouldn't end mass school attack incidents. You'd probably see a rise in IED's, etc.

I have every sympathy but a lot of this is symptomatic of a bigger problem. Maybe not the example of some middle-aged yob dude from Wrexham (or somewhere similarly horrible) necking white cider but the broader epidemic. Increasing rent and gas bills by the day but not wages to compensate when there’s money to fund Ukraine and Russia’s stand-offs really isn’t the one. IMO, anyway. I’d be more inclined to start there than blaming the Tories but this is just newspaper clickbait.

But I get where you’re coming from. I do.

It's a different question for both though. Social reform is unlikely to be implemented for political reasons, removing the weapons is impossible to implement for practical reasons. A ban on firearms is much easier: you can outright ban the sale of them, no one (at least most people) can't improvise one. You can't ban the sale of sharp objects, nor can you stop someone simply making a sharp object out of pretty much anything. And stop & search isn't even a half-way solution.

Soon a group of shops
will have the new CCTV tacking system
that bleeps the security
once criminals enter

They will get dragged out of the store.
And Important, the next store is alerted

Stores that have Security Staff enabled