We have been killing each other since the beginning of time, blame the person not the tool used to kill.
That's a lot like saying "don't blame the cigarettes for lung cancer, blame the people who smoke them."
I'm glad that you mentioned driving and texting, because the real reason for not restricting or prohibiting guns is the same as the reason for not restricting or prohibiting cars, or cell phones--or for that matter, cigarettes.
That is to say: because, in the minds of the people who own and use and enjoy these items, and the people who depend on the manufacture and sale of these items for their livelihood, their utility outweighs the inevitable and predictable costs of allowing them. Everything else is just rationalization.
Mass cigarette smoking leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass lung cancer. Mass automobile ownership leads, inevitably and predictably, to mass auto accidents, injuries, and deaths. And the easy availability of guns leads, inevitably and predictably, to widespread gun violence.
The decision to tolerate all this collateral damage rests entirely on the calculation that our own convenience and pleasure and profit outweigh the risks to ourselves and (especially) to others. Other people are always acceptable losses.
In the case of personal automobiles, their utility is so obvious, and their appeal is so nearly universal, that almost nobody would think of trying to ban them, despite the mayhem they cause. Cigarettes, by contrast, have no utility, and their appeal has been declining for decades: the result has been a steady increase in restrictions on their sale and use. Guns fall in between the two extremes, which is why they're so controversial.
Well the problem with the gun control debate is that, as far as I am aware the data associating mass gun ownership with mass gun violence is far less clear. The US does have a lot of gun violence but a state by state analysis doesnt show a particularly strong relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. Northern US states with very high gun ownership dont have particularly high violent crime rates.
If the data were very clear cut there may be more support in the US for repealing our 2nd amendment, but it isn't. In this one particular case it may be that had he had no gun the crime may never had occur but it doesn't tell any of us how many gun crimes in general would be prevented by banning guns or for that matter how many more crimes would occur without legal gun ownership.As an American if the data were only so-so or a wash in reduction of violence versus restricting gun ownership I will go with the free-er choice myself
In the example of the UK or other countries it is worth considering several facts
1) The UK is an island nation. I would imagine that makes border smuggling a tad bit harder
2) If the UK had as many firearms per capita as the US when restricting ownership it is entirely probably that there would be so many firearms available that criminals would be easily able to obtain them.
To the original post this is tragic, not unexpected and very likely not very related to guns or the walking dead