Factual evidence that gun control laws are ineffective against criminal use of guns is all around us but those that want to destroy the 2nd Amendment don't care about statistics. The removal of guns from the hands of the public by leftist "liberals" has a much more sinister purpose and nothing to do with public safety. The misinformation spread by anti-gun groups is assisted by misinformation from Hollywood and even the supposedly conservative media. I was shocked to hear a member of the conservative Fox News team this morning describe the AR rifle used by the elementary school murderer as "an incredibly powerful gun". Nothing insinuates "gun control" more than this kind of misleading misinformation.
So I will go on a limb and say that not everyone who supports gun control has a sinister anti-2A plan, at least not one with the intent of total government control with the citizenry having no means to resist. A LOT of people see a tragedy like this and they truly do have a noble desire... for someone to "do something" to help prevent some looney tunes evil monster from shooting up kindergarteners. I also have that same desire. I wish we would never see a day where school kids are slaughtered by an 18-20 year old white psycho again. I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the gravity of that in our (justifiable) defense of the 2nd Amendment.
Sounds like I'm sympathetic to gun control doesn't it? I'm not. Gun control is a red herring. There are so many guns in circulation in the US now, even a total (or near total) ban would be almost pointless. It might, MIGHT, prevent some young adults from doing something like this when they otherwise would. MIGHT. But gun crime is most often (by a very wide margin) committed by gangs and drug dealers who are already prohibited from possessing firearms under existing laws. Even if half of the guns in America are turned in, there would still likely be enough guns in private possession for every adult in America. What an outright ban, even a soft "assault weapons" ban, would do is push those firearms underground. Many otherwise law abiding citizens would refuse to turn them in, so they will be stashed in the back of the crawl space. After a few years of not being able to use it, the first time money is tight, they will be sold private party black market style. Probably to someone willing to flip it to a gang banger. No, gun prohibition is not the answer. That would only INCREASE violence and flood the black market with even more guns IMO.
In most school shootings, there are major red flags grossly ignored by someone who should not have. The Parkland shooter had FBI complaints and a long track record. The Sandy Hook shooter had an enabling mother that neglected due caution and taught an unstable kid who didn't come out of his room months at a time how to shoot, and apparently gave him access (or failed to sufficiently restrict it) to an AR. The Boulder Colorado theater shooting was committed by a man whose psychiatrist should have taken him befofe a judge to restrict his firearms rights under existing law. There are numerous other examples (pulse nightclub shooter was flagged by FBI, so were the Tsarnev Boston bombing brothers). There were reports that the Las Vegas shooter had an open FBI investigation on him at the time of the shooting, but now I can find no reference to that. I swear I've seen this in major media reports around the time of the incident. No we have a sordid history of inaction when referrals were made to law enforcement or other parties who should have acted under LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST. In the case of the Parkland shooter local LEO and prosecutors declined to take the steps to make him a prohibited person when they should have. The Southerland Springs Church shooter was a prohibited person, but the Air Force dropped the ball in reporting his DV conviction to NICS.
Making it a crime (or at least a tort law) for persons in a position of responsibility or authority to fail to take action to legally report unstable individuals to NICS, which would prevent their legal purchase of a firearm under existing law, should be priority number 1. There are too many examples where the existing system and framework flat failed.
The only other new restriction that would, quite likely, prevent school shootings is an age prohibition. Most school shooters are under 21. I know many here will have a knee jerk reaction against such a prohibition. I have largely been against it myself. Offender profiles are what they are though. If there is a gun control measure that MIGHT reduce the number of school shootings,, it would be an age restriction for pistols and semi-auto rifles. And even then, someone determined enough could buy through underground channels.