I agree. But this does not negate his point. I am from Australia originally and still cannot get over the way in which the US endures shooting after shooting like this, without a substantive, rapid change to its gun laws.
In Australia we implemented sweeping changes to our own gun laws in the space of a few months after a particularly bad shooting. We were able to do so because we recognised the horrific damage that the mentally ill and the deranged can do when they have access to these weapons.
(And we also had no antiquated second amendment nonsense that opponents of the gun ban could hide behind).
It truly is all the more tragic that this student should get gunned down in America after Australia's own experience banning guns. The fact that atrocities happen in Australia does not change this fact.
First of all I'd like to point out that ALL US laws, federal and state, strictly prohibit the sale of guns to minors. Given that the 3 perpetrators were all under age 18, all of the guns they had were illegally acquired.
Secondly, from all relevant statistics gun crime is down something like 30% from 20 years ago, in line with the US's continual drop in average violent crime over that period. This happened as gun laws in many states got substantially less strict. Not saying one caused the other, but the fact that these two supposedly opposite trends should correlate demonstrates that guns are not the deciding factor.
Thirdly, the gun situation here is far different than it ever was in Australia. At last count, we have over 300,000,000 guns. Imagine if every man, woman and child in Australia owned 13 guns. That's how many we have. In addition we have a porous southern border where guns are free to flow to criminals along with the drugs. There is no viable way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
In addition, the anti-gun elements here insist on actions that have time and again proven ineffective in curtailing gun crime in the US, and have not respected the rights of blameless gun owners in any way shape or form. To own an AR-15 in the US, or to carry concealed is to be personally and directly demonized by those elements seeking further gun control regardless of said owner's political or criminal record. This has resulted in the gun control lobby looking like absolute morons and the development of a siege mentality among US gun owners. I personally know many NRA members, including myself, who contribute far above the minimum to the NRA not because we agree with all of the NRA's positions, but because we realize that the goal of our opposition is not to prevent gun crime but to force their vision upon the blameless majority.
It's telling that the vast majority of gun violence in the US occurs in decaying cities with the strictest gun control. Occasionally there is a freak incident outside of these zones, and these incidents get media attention precisely because they are out of the ordinary where they occur. However, the vast majority of gun violence goes unreported or ignored because it cannot be twisted to political purposes. Many times the number of children killed at Sandy Hook die in gang-related shootings every year, but this goes completely unreported.
As for the 2nd amendment, we have a process in place to remove it. This process has been used before for things like alcohol prohibition, so it is viable. If the majority of Americans think it is "antiquated" (which I heartily scoff at, as all have a natural right to kill in self defense, and effective self defense in the modern age requires a gun), then it will be re-worded or removed. But the majority of Americans don't, so the gun control advocates try to actively circumvent the relevant legal process as best they can.
Bottom line, gun restriction in the US ceased to be an effective option decades ago. Modern prevention of gun crime needs to focus on things like urban decay, education, ending the war on drugs, mental health and law enforcement. I imagine all crime will decrease as a result.