I'm I the only one that noticed that all of the recent shooting (the batman one, the mall one and the school one today) all took place some where that restricts concealed weapons?
Why?
Because the shooters know that the victims can't defend themselves.
And now they think taking guns away will solve the problem? They think it will make people safer?

dat logic

I'm not saying we should allow guns in schools, but taking guns away, defiantly_ isn't_ the solution.

I think a better approach would be to require locks to be placed on guns when not in use (if that's not a law already)
I know it won't solve every problem, but it's a start.

You probably meant to use "definitely".

oh, you

It is something wrong with society that has to lead to these things being more common. There is no definite cause or causes of why, and there is no known solution.

To be honest I do not know what is worse. Technically today the rate of death from firearms is low compared to how it was in the past. But then again, a person shooting somebody else had a lot more motive and sense to it in the past.

This is not a gun control issue. You're crazy if you think taking away legal guns would have prevented this, and even crazier if you think we should just start legally mandating concealed carrying on school campuses.

Gun control wouldn't have prevented the shooting whatsoever.

More control on the manufacturing and distribution of guns would. No illegal guns would make the in place gun control actually do something.

History of states and nations have proven that gun control does not solve anything, it doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. It's not a coincidence that states with the strictest gunlaws have the most crime.

Side question: Did the school not have any kind of police officer in it? My schools have always had at least two officers that worked there and strict entrance security. It could be bypassed, but not easily.

You literally just reiterated my point. Control over the distribution would lessen the flow of illegal guns, maybe not stop it, but decrease it by a significant amount. Gun control doesn't work simply because it's easy to still get a gun. If you could take that ability away somehow, it would work.
But it's not a coincidence that states with the strictest gun control have the most crime. The states with the strictest gun control are the ones with the largest cities and the most racial gang violence. Texas, California, New York. It doesn't have to do with the laws, but the inability to regulate the laws.

Also tell that to Great Brittain, who because of gun control infact are in bigger shit than ever. In fact most police states have gained more crime as they became stricter.

These strict laws are counter productive.

"Control over the distribution would lessen the flow of illegal guns, maybe not stop it, but decrease it by a significant amount"

Because that's why crime has decreased while gun ownership has increased, logic.

Its a moot point in America. Ability to bear arms is in the Constitution so your arguments mean nothing.

yeah, the constitution wasn't designed to be able to be changed or anything.

Well then change it.

Actually casualties could have been limited if staff were allowed to conceal and carry firearms. If a nutjob wants a gun he'll go as far as getting on the black market. All making guns illegal does is limits the only source of guns to the black market, so pretty much citizens dont have guns and criminals do.