Muscatine

So Mal wants to know how to prevent these things from happening. 

I'll work from the assumption that it is impossible to prevent such tragedy if an evil person is determined to carry it out.  But that being said, here's what I think.

As I've stated before, we must demand that our justice system punish those who ignore gun laws to the fullest extent possible.  I'd also instantly up the penalties to such a degree that they would truly be deterrents.

One problem with tougher punishment is that most of these guys end up dead by their own hand or by law enforcement after the fact.   Same with longer prison terms, after the fact.

Since the shooter is dead, and he killed his mother who legally owned the guns, we can't go after them.  An adult woman who keeps 4 weapons in her home with a self-described "goth" whackjob probably was part of the problem.  I would also go after the father, who certainly had some say in how this kid was raised and who despite being out of the house for awhile, certainly should have know there were  nuts and guns living together. 

Consider allowing trained, certified CCP carrying teachers the right to carry during the school day.  A good friend of mine who is a retired teacher had this converstation years ago after Columbine, and most of his female co-workers were agains the idea.  I wonder if their views might be altered by this most recent event. 

This has appeal on first blush but how often will the aremed teacher be at the right place to stop anything even if they were the best shot in the world.   And I think it's about 50 50 who prevails in the shootout.

I am a card carrying member of the NRA, but would not have a problem with a ban on assault weapons.  In this case, it appears it wasn't assault weapons that did the damage, but I don't understand who needs them, other than law enforcement.  They're no good as a concealed carry weapon, and for home defense, a good shotgun is certainly preferred.  The trick here would be to make sure the liberals wouldn't then want to keep the gun-ban ball rolling.

 I give you credit for putting forth the most rational of solutions provided.   Most just duck the issue or spout the NRA mantra of "more guns".   I'll let the boys tell you why we all need these assault weapons.   They'll have an answer.

Background checks....again, should be part of the process in all cases.  But I don't understand the numbers I see based on my experiences at gun stores or gun shows, where I always had to produce a CCP or have a background check.  Hell, I have no problem with the background check process being made more comprehensive and detailed.  But again, it wouldn't have mattered in this case.  A stupid gun owner with unsecured weapons cannot be held accountable because she's already dead.

 Betterbackground checks are certainly in order.   For instance in my experience when you got a government job requiring some level of secrecy clearance, the FBI didn't just check for convictions of some crime in the public record, they sent around agents to talk to your teachers, your doctor, neighbors and others and put together a full report.

Dead by their own hands or in prison.....makes no difference to me.  Tremendous savings of money and better than keeping  their sorry arses alive.

My point is that no matter how harsh the penalty, if they're dead it doesn't make any difference.   It's not a deterrent.

One armed teacher....probably not enough, but certainly better than nothing.  An armed school official at the main entrance or several armed teachers spread through a building, a huge advantage.  Your 50-50 guess has no basis in fact.

My guess refers to the chances of preventing a death.  Chances are the killer will have killed several before the armed teacher even knows where he is in the building.

Make shooting proficiency a requirement to get a teaching certificate and you might prevent some killings but you'd diminish the pool of teachers and their quality.

Specifically, which "boys" are going to tell me about assault weapons?  Who has stated support for them?

Let's give them a chance.   If they decline, I'll tell you the silly response.

Your background check in a perfect world would be great, unless of course there was a teacher who didn't like you, or a neighbor who you'd argued with, or a doctor who you'd disagreed with, or if somebody had to actually figure out how to pay for such an extensive search. 

Someone would have to make a judgment of how much weight to put on the responses.   If all are negative, deny.   If all but one, maybe pass.   Maybe you have to pursue why there was a negative response and how valid it is.

Sure cost is a big factor.   How much are the lives of 20 grade school kids worth.   If we're serious, we should find a way to pay it.   Maybe add it to the bill of the gun buyer.  That would be a deterrent in itself.