Unfortunately school systems today (driven by federal and state rules) are focused on mainstreaming students with "disabilities" into regular schools. Back when I was a K-12 student they placed these students in their own special school with specialized staff who could meet their needs, and where they wouldn't continuously disrupt a class of 20 students who want to learn. What you propose goes against the entire modern educational philosophy to "mainstream" these "special" students.
Gun ownership is enshrined in the basic fabric of American life. It's not going away as evidenced by SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment. With that in mind, the only way to quickly deter mass school shootings is 1-2 armed guards posted in every school for the sole purpose of "defusing" these situations. Teachers, security guards, or police would fill this role. The additional cost would be viewed as an insurance policy against such an attack. What else can you do? Everything else is just a half-measure. Sure, more mental screening. Sure, more aggressive profiling. Funny how Liberals never refer to the ongoing slaughter in Chicago as a case for gun control. Liberals only call for gun control after a school shooting. Not when blacks are gunned down by the thousands. Why? Because it exposes the Leftist narrative as being a lie. Blacks commit a vastly disproportionate number of violent crimes in America, while white kids, comparatively, commit vastly less. Trump should have sent in 1,000 FBI/DEA Agents into South Side Chicago Day#2. That was his fault. Head it up by black agents. Who cares. Get the job done.
21 age restriction is a good starting point ( troops not withstanding). We live in a society where young adults remain "kids" for much longer and quite simply have shown a level of maturity that isn't enough to become a gun owner. Hell, I'd say the same about joining for service, but I think the discipline/direction the armed forces provides for many high school graduates offsets the negatives of age. Money off politics (including NRA) is the next logical step, as really, these associations aren't protecting rights as much as the bottom line of corporate donors. Magazine restriction/high capacity weapons except for recreative shooting would be nice, but there's plenty of people with enough land to do so in their property. So unless we restrict these weapons to those who have the space for them or approved gun ranges... But I just don't see it happening. What, with the whole militia thing in the constitution and all
Thanks, Magna! I was going to ask you if you could do this but didn't want to waste your time being a baby sitter. Much appreciated, sir!
I have no issue in raising the age to 21, but 25 for an AR doesn't do anything, as there are plenty of weaponry just as deadly you could get at 21. So picking out a particular weapon to categorize it as more dangerous than others... Of course, this doesn't address illegally owned and obtained weapons at all.
Again, restrictions don't solve the problem of the hundreds of millions of firearms and accessories already in the field.
I understand that the NRA does not agree with some of my positions. Like AAA said awhile ago, it can be viewed as the gateway to more serious laws trying to restrict freedoms. I get their point, but I disagree.
Banning guns is a non starter IMO. There are over 300,000,000 firearms in the US. The reason this problem is getting worse is that we don't address the real cause, and it ain't the number or type of guns.