No, it most likely wouldn’t have.

Going off of that logic we shouldn’t have laws for anything, because there will always be people who break them. No law is perfect. The goal is to reduce gun violence, not eliminate it.  Also worth noting the the NRA plays a large part in lobbying to protect the act that allows firearms manufacturers to illegally sell weapons in the first place, so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You could move. Isn’t that what you guys always say when people complain about the state of the country? Or, you know, you could accept the fact that gun control and other measures are not mutually exclusive and try to think of solutions to this problem other than “**** everyone else as long as I’m safe in my house.”

Right, we shouldn’t be talking about this at all. Let’s just let more kids get killed.

The second amendment (and all those who interpret it incorrectly as well as treat it like holy scripture) is far past the point of saving more people than it kills.

And psychotic people with guns kill more than psychotic people with knives and blunt objects. It’s nice that you know plenty of responsible gun owners. Do you (and they) know that the US is also the gun violence capital of the entire world?

And those would be a lot less lethal than a guy with a rifle in a kindergarten classroom. Note: the post does not say it’s the NRA’s fault. Way to miss the point though.

They definitely wouldn’t be killing children and journalists.

Right, the country that’s killing journalists and children is the one that’s not savage.

There is no morbid sense of humor present here.