considering children can't legally own or use guns, no, that wouldn't be the logical solution.
Why? Are they not Americans? Oh, right, as non-adults we designate their rights upon guardians to be metered out at their discretion and as they feel is so warranted. Well, so long as a student is at school, the school has temporary guardianship of the student, so they can designate the student has a right to possess and use a firearm.
Seriously, though, it's interesting that according to you children can't legally own or use guns for one main thing: who defines who is or isn't a child? If we go by what was the standard that was true at the founding of the US, there were definitely 7 year olds who hunted and had their own guns. But let's just set it at
10 years old.
Good point. Elementary school should start with military education and gun training.
Kids should be provided official guns to be carried inside the school for protection.
And they should be subject to psychological tests many times a year, and expelled and sent to a mental institution if they don't pass. If they could end up being a load for society then better cut them clean early anyway.
If you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. I do not believe a military education would be a good thing to push on all Americans because it frames the world in the context of the military being a solution to most, if not all, of life's problems. Gun training sounds reasonable, though. As for psychological tests, if they couldn't adequately test Nikolas Cruz, I don't have any real hope they'll do a good job with even younger children. The people most capable of passing will be the sociopaths.
More to the point, sending children to mental institutions is no sort of solution any more than our current prison system is any sort of solution to crime. It's merely a system to contain people as we see fit. By the same token, people who are in mental institutions and prisons are "a load for society" precisely because they're locked up. So, we inherently try to cut as many corners on actually engaging with the people to cut costs--and line the pockets of those who build/run the places.
It's just as broken as NCLB and Core40. They present goals and incentives, but they don't provide mechanisms and means to achieve those goals. Instead, the ones who fail are punished and somehow that magically is supposed to fix things. The focus becomes to teach for a test and regurgitate the right answer, not to understand. This whole debate should not be about proposing solutions and then incorporating supposed steps to get there. It should be about finding the problem and then taking steps to reach a solution, even if it's unclear what the final outcome will be.