We literally have people in this very thread saying that the statistics and numbers don't matter "because children."
What do you think happens when we put the "reasonable restrictions" on guns and then a kid gets shot again? Do they say "well, we put reasonable restrictions so sometimes these things just happen"? Or "well it looks like that restriction didn't work very well, let's get rid of it and try something else"? Or do you think they'll go farther with the restrictions while not removing old ones? Again of course using very emotionally targeted ads of happy kids in a classroom with a masked man right outside about to burst in.
You can look at the restrictions in a few states to see they are more concerned with making guns more difficult and inconvenient to get than they are with making sensible laws. Having a foregrip or a collapsible stock does not make a gun more deadly, but putting onerous restrictions on gun owners and manufacturers does make people less likely to buy them. California requires new technology implemented into pistols which hasn't ever been used successfully, thus defacto banning any new pistol designs. That regulation actually makes people less safe, as they can't get newly updated designs of pistols and are stuck with grandfathered versions.
The only way to completely stop any gun violence is to have no guns. If people have an "any gun violence is too much and action has to be taken" attitude, the end result is banning guns. Of course, when people still get shot I don't know what they'll go after next, but it doesn't really matter.
We live in the safest time we've ever had in the United States, and we've got people talking about making new legislation affecting millions of citizens based on 4 deaths a day (although the number is low, that's what they're basing it on). 4. Out of 300,000,000. We could reduce gun deaths by 90% and get it down to where it's actually 4 deaths a day, and people would still say it's too much as evidenced in this very conversation.
Are most democrats pushing for gun bans? No, not yet. I do find it hard to believe that once we get universal background checks and ban assault rifles they'll stop pushing for more regulations though, because people will still be killed using guns. They'll spin the story the exact same as the article that spawned this thread. 11 shootings in 26 days!
So maybe those of you in this thread can enlighten me. Let's say we implement every restriction you want, universal background checks, waiting periods, bans on semi autos, the works (not sure who wants what but those are common themes). Say we do all of that, and a year later a school is shot up and 5 kindergarteners are killed. Will you be satisfied with current restrictions, or will you push for more because kids getting killed is not ever acceptable?