So in light of the current mood and after a little time to sort of gather and reflect here's my stance on the current gun debate: 1) Let's start here: Banning guns will not happen in the US. It's a non-starter. Too many guns, too many people with guns, it'd be like trying to ban cars. 2) I am all for more stringent purchasing limitations. You want to raise the legal age? Fine. I have no problem with that. More in-depth background checks? Absolutely. Pass a psych eval? Sure. I'm up for that. There's no reason why such a powerful weapon should be so easy to obtain, it's what leads to people being irresponsible owners. Having a gun comes with weight and responsibility and there should be a sense of responsibility and burden there. Anyone who can just go get a gun easily should not be able to do that. 3) AR doesn't stand for Automatic Rifle, it stands for Assault Rifle. An Assault Rifle, by manufacturer design, is not an automatic weapon. It is for all intents and purposes, a larger and more powerful semi-automatic pistol. I just wanted to point this out because I hear a lot of uninformed opinions on this, even from people who are gun owners! Let's keep this in mind that there is a distinction. I believe there is no reason to have an automatic weapon as a civilian. An automatic weapon is a weapon only useful to kill someone who is trying to kill you. It is not a useful hunting tool, it is not a useful home defense weapon, it's an impractical recreation weapon. 4) I do not believe ARs should be banned. I know there are single action hunting rifles out there, but an AR is still a relatively useful hunting weapon and over the last 20 years many people have been hunting with them. I am okay if you want to make this a very difficult weapon to buy, that's fine with me. Again, that's not my concern. A qualified person should be the only one capable of purchasing and carrying a firearm. 5) Arming the teachers is a cheap measure. People don't go into teaching in order to shoot firearms, keeping firearms near children isn't necessarily the best idea in that setting, and introducing more overt guns into that arena is probably not a good idea. If a teacher wants to be armed, I believe strongly in a carrier's permit being available to any citizen that can pass stringent psychological exams and proves competent. If a teacher feels safer carrying, then they should have that option given the amount of times schools are shot these days. But as a requirement or something? Why? If anything, hire more veterans to defend schools. It could be an easy way for them to make money for a population that we're not servicing enough. 6) Just a final thought, I'm a gun owner and I was shocked at how easy it was to buy a handgun. I've heard it's easier to buy rifles. I was not required to prove my competency. I was not required to the ins and outs of the gun. I didn't have to pass a competency exam for firing the gun (like a driver's test). I don't think that's right. I think if you're going to put something this powerful out into the world, you should prove your competency both mentally and physically. I also believe more people should be introduced to guns at a young age by responsible people so that they can understand the gravity of what that weapon means and how to take it seriously. 7) That kid needed help a long time ago. He was on the FBI watch list already. This was a massive failure by the institutions meant to protect us. This isn't a justification for guns at all, just a statement of fact. How do you let that kid buy a gun? If you're being watched by the effing FBI (who said they couldn't find him... did they check his house?), how can you buy a gun? That makes no sense to me.