[ctdonath]

There was nothing to indicate she should be denied such. Self-defense is a valid and widely-exercised human right. Just because Policy X has problems doesn't mean Policy Y doesn't (and may unleash the Pandora's Box which Policy X was imperfectly controlling).

Even were guns nationally banned, that she decided to proceed with mass murder - showing enough signs of danger far enough in advance that she was reported to & interviewed by police - there were a multitude of ways of carrying out the attack, including by buying contraband weapons. Other products are completely illegal in this country, with enormous suppression activity, yet are widely available; no reason to believe a ban would somehow render guns unobtainable via a few hundred dollars discretely exchanged in the wrong side of town.

What's pity is the victims were[0] specifically denied a right to armed self-defense, under threat of harm. She was the rare one who snapped, and in doing so violated a plethora of "reasonable restrictions" to cause grave harm; nobody seems to notice the enormous numbers likewise armed yet never harm anyone - a few happening to stop such attacks early.

[0] - summarizing, details beyond a mere comment.