I keep hearing, listen to the children, but that is not a solution. This issue is more complex than no NRA money, assault rifle bans or trying to get the "right" people elected. The last Democratic controlled Congress and Presidency did not enact stricter laws. Again, the guns used, in this shooting, are ones a majority of Americans do not oppose. 

Stop the blame and condemnation of those other than the killers. No one wants kids to die, not even the NRA, anti-gun control people and politicians. Put forward attainable goals, take those baby steps and get closer. Any progress gets you closer to the win, standing still demanding that you win gets you nowhere.

Far more real was a student who when asked if she ever thought such a terrible thing could happen in her school answered 'yes, of course, it was always on her mind that it would'. What an awful thing for kids to have to stress about on top of everything else.

----------------------

Just because we can't prevent every gun death, doesn't mean we can't reduce the number. As my example of DUIs, we haven't gotten the DUI number to zero, but we have cut it by more than half since we got serious about DUI laws.

What does the science say? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-state-study-more-g un-laws-fewer-deaths/

Referring to a single incident and how could it have been stopped has, as has been noted under separate cover, one simple solution; shoot the attacker before he can kill anyone. One death instead of multiple.

This concept is preposterous. Even if somehow protection could be provided to so many different venues - even just schools - would be expensive, inefficient, and treatment of a symptom - not a problem. And not only do I feel that it would stop shootings, but some of these insane bastards might see it as a CHALLENGE!

Gun control laws - even mild ones - will not change anything today, or tomorrow, or next Wednesday. But they WILL change things in a few years, even if only to a limited degree, and as Michael S. splendidly observed - TAKE THOSE BABY STEPS.

Had such legislation been enacted ten years ago, we might not be discussing that such occurrences seem to be a daily event - or even four or five times weekly. The river doesn't start and immediately hit the bottom of the mountain - but it WILL get there, and when it does, the effects will be impressive.

Just because an action doesn't have immediate effect is no indicator that it will not do tremendous good in the future. Investing and Social Security are predicated on that concept.

Politicians could lose millions in funding. 

:-/

------------------------------------------------------------ ----

This is a pretty bury-your-head-in-the-sand notion. Never regulate anything, because it is never the fault of anyone who shapes society on a large-scale, merely the actions of the individual that is to blame.

There is a problem on which we can all agree, as you alluded to in your post, Michael, which is kids being shot to death. It sounds like you understand the problem stems from too many guns.

Where we diverge is that you say the guns are already here and tightening regulations will not get rid of those guns.

However, consider when cars were built without seatbelts and fatalities from road accidents were far higher. Laws were enacted to remedy the problem. Car manufacturers were forced to put belts in new cars. Old cars remained grandfathered in. The millions of extant, unsafe cars were not an argument for maintaining the old, flawed regulations. In time, the cars with seatbelts outnumbered the less safe ones. Then regulations were tightened further to make wearing the damn things compulsory. Then they decided that having belts in the back should be compulsory. Once again, all the millions of cars on the road that didn't have belts in the back, did not mean that this new law was pointless or destined to fail. It just needed time.

The argument that a law that will prevent deaths in the longterm is pointless because it will not immediately prevent a death in the now is an empty argument.