A good start? Where do you see it ending? I mean, you're only reducing a small percentage of the weapons used in killings in the US. Handguns make up the primary instrument. Ban those too? How about evil sniper rifles? Like grandpa's scoped 1903 Springfield rifle. Drunk drivers kill thousands each year, sooo, lets ban Corvettes. That ought to fix the problem. No one needs one of those high capacity speedy death machines. They're only designed to drive on a track, not on your average city street, where children playing won't have time to get out of the way of such a dealer of mechanical carnage. Makes about as much sense as your argument.
And, you should check this out. Not the only one worldwide, BTW.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966
And, in Britain, knife attacks are up 21%.
I wonder how many machete deaths in southern Africa have occurred in the last 10 years.
And, how about Japan. They're usually lifted up by the banners as having one of the "perfect" gun ban societies...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings
People that want to commit mass murder are going to do it, irregardless of whatever roadblock you think you have put in their way. It's a mental issue, not one of availability of hardware. IED's, knives, swords, bats, fire, whatever they can come up with, they will. Limiting things to the civilian populace does little or nothing to a determined criminal. Ask one sometime. I've talked to several (retired guard). The law doesn't mean much to them, as long as they don't think they'll get caught.
And, finally, the thread WAS about "guns do kill people", so my observations aren't exactly "off subject" of the thread. Unless I'm only supposed to agree with the OP and other posters, like the other topic section here. You were calling for the repeal of the 2d, without actually going through the proper procedure to remove it. I was merely pointing out the rough road that would entail, and if one amendment goes, the rest must surely follow.