We can dig in our heels and throw all the logic and understanding of firearms and national history at them that we want. Logic and facts are great but they don't really work in politics. Writing your representatives, contributing to advocacy groups, hitting polls, and adding your principled arguments in the public debate are the first and finest things you can do. Still if you think obstinately saying NO in any and all forms is a strategy prepare to be bitterly disappointed this time around. The public tide has turned. Yes there is no short supply of naive, ignorant, and/or deceptive propaganda being slung out there that's helping the anti's at the moment but this incident in close proximity to recent incidents will demand that they come away with something no matter how ineffectual or misguided it is. Right now they are trotting out the same old discredited positions and bad legislation with the revelation and improvement (saracasm added) that previous attempts didn't work because they just didn't go far enough. If we just sit back and say NO while they do this the choice taken will be theirs for lack of better options but be certain something will be passed. That they are doing this tells me they are totally disingenuous about a "discussion" to help minimize and prevent gun crime. No discussion has been entered only dusting off old ideas and readying them to shove through congress. What we need to do is point out the shoddy thinking behind these bills (which we do) but more importantly offer better alternatives. My thoughts. Training and arming teachers while full of logic is pure fantasy and makes us look loonie to any and all americans without practical experience with firearms. Teachers have many requirements to meet to manage, engage, and educate our youngest citizens. Adding armed guard to that list takes them off mission and points out the failures of other parts of our society. Nobody's going to buy it. Third grade art teachers being required to carry and be competent with a sidearm is a non starter for almost everyone but the most delusional firearms enthusiasts. Armed guards in schools while a better more realistic idea will probably not fly politically or financially on a large scale or public dime. If you go there then you'll have to add armed guards in shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, public parks, and everywhere else people congregate in numbers. Maybe some places will volunteer to arm and protect their premises themselves. I could see some expensive private schools promoting well trained and armed guards on campus. All the same, people will buy drastic infringements to our rights before they accept moving about in a society that scenario paints. Do promote concealed carry for citizens. While not police officers who are charged and trained to engage and deal with conflict resolution it should be stressed that properly trained and licensed citizens that carry are a benefit to society when an immediate threat to self and others is present and law enforcement is not. The gun show loophole they speak of is one area that they may have a point about. Yes they are wrong about dealers at gun shows but without being so pedantic we must admit that buying from an FFL and buying from an individual in a FTF transaction makes a farce of the whole idea of background checks. We already have to use FFL's to sell and transfer weapons across state lines. I don't see it as an unreasonable burden that we use the services of an FFL for all transfers and sales of serialized weapons. That frees the seller from scrutiny or liability if that weapon is used in a crime at some point down the road and provides consistency of the background check to ensure weapons aren't being transferred to individuals who would not be eligible for retail purchases of firearms. "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. This is the toughest topic to defuse and the one that people are most misinformed and hysterical about. Pure argument for original intent of the 2nd amendment is weak and perceived as ideological and abstract. Yes military style weapons are exactly what the 2nd amendment intends to be available and in civilian possession. The standard argument is that we have a peerless standing army and robust law enforcement agencies and the need for citizen soldiers is archaic. That outcome is more a perversion of history than anything. Switzerland is often cited as an example of unaltered military hardware being abundant and common among a peaceful population. It's also more true to the intent of our constitution regarding military organization. Yes our military is one of our most respected national institutions and one we at least have some sense we are getting our money's worth from. Some would argue that is exactly what we need our RKBA for lest at some time in future history that institution is turned against our descendants by a corrupt and autocratic political class. Maybe far fetched at the moment but not inconceivable. The laws we pass for today's expediencies may be perverted and used for interests contrary to the welfare of the populace. The proposition of a permanent AWB will distinctly remove from the citizenry the familiarity of contemporary arms and their evolution. Instead of prohibition how about regulation? I know many here will bristle at this thought but if the citizenry at large cannot discern between automatic, semi-automatic, clips, and magazines how about make it simple for them. Group all military derived weaponry under class 3 classification without prohibition or restriction of their use or sale. Class 3 items are better regulated with a process already in place for private citizens to obtain them. It could be pointed out how few crimes have ever been committed by class 3 licensed owners. A $200 tax stamp on an AR15 that is available provided you pass the application process is better than the AR15 that is banned. As far as mental health and the criminal aspect of the issues at hand I would not have an informed opinion on where to start. All I can say is that gun crimes usually follow patterns. These contemporary mass shooters follow such a strong profile I don't see why resources can't be marshaled to target and address those at risk.