People who say the answer to mass shootings should be gun restrictions remind me of people who say the answer to terrorist attacks (AKA mass killings by brown people, white people from the South, and/or leftists) is more airport security. Basically, try to get rid of the means of killing instead of the reason for killing. There are such easy ways to kill people, sure guns are one of them, but if you want to kill people, it's not hard. There are baseball bats and knives. There are homemade explosives and guides on the internet (some of which are from the CIA, if you check my profile picture) on how to make them. There are ways to kill police and steal their weapons (which is what happened during the 2005 Red Lake massacre). There is driving a car through a heavily populated area and simply mowing people down (happened in the Bay Area). Even at the airport -- can't get your box-cutter on the plane? Fine, stick military-grade explosives in your underwear like the underpants bomber. Or, if you can't get the explosives through security, set them off while you're in line at the airport. If you are an organized terrorist group, have your 19 terrorists set them off at different airports. So even if the government had the capacity to implement gun control properly (instead of, say, selling the guns to drug dealers) the idea that it would solve the killing problem is stupid.
There is ALWAYS a way to kill people like this. Gun control, like airport security, is simply a way for the state to remind you who is in control. It is to give political legitimacy to the state while reducing the violent threat to a sort of "foreign," uninterpretable threat. That way, you don't start asking, why the hell would 19 well-educated Muslim men with good lives want to blow up a building or a train? Perhaps it's because they are sick of America's wars in the Middle East and decided to take it out on innocent civilians -- which is what they fucking said. The very state that is provoking violence by engaging in it in the Middle East (and, in the case of Syria, Libya, and Iraq, actively assisting the very groups that attacked us on 9/11) cannot therefore be seen as "protective". Or, people might ask, what does this family whose son has clear mental issues need? Money? Affordable health insurance for medical care? Some other kind of assistance? Absent serious political and social solutions for why people kill each other, people will still keep doing it. The security solutions that involve controlling people are like those attempts during the Cold War to say "don't worry, everything is under control, just hide under your desk in case of a nuclear bombing". It is to make the state seem familiar, like it is there to help and protect you (even when it it is actually far more likely to kill you), while any potential threat -- political, social, mental health -- is reduced to some scary thing that we cannot comprehend and therefore must fight using police, military, etc. This is also, for the record, why I think the NRA is so stupid. Their spokesperson suggested armed guards at schools. That is exactly the problem, only instead of the police doing it, it's contracting security out to private individuals.
If the NRA wants to help, they should donate some money to a mental health clinic and say "See?! We're helping to address the root cause while you guys bawk about the means to kill people. We're part of the solution and you're just a distraction!" But, they didn't.