We have all (hopefully) read about both sides of the gun debate since these senseless tragedies have occurred. It is a complex, partisan dilemma that will take more decades than I will be alive to resolve in an acceptable manner for all. Arguments and blame are raging on both sides. One simple common denominator is cash.
Protecting our schools by equipping them with metal detectors, as well as the prohibitive cost of arming, training, recruiting, insuring and paying teachers and staff to provide this service is exorbitant, and not well received. Banning the sale of these assault rifles and their accouterments would bankrupt many legitimate gun shops.
A simplistic beginning to quell the violence can also revolve around cash. If you prefer to harden school targets with more trained, armed personnel, call on the PTAs, PTOs and all the other volunteer organizations that populate our schools. There must be firearm enthusiasts in our own neighborhoods. Recruit them to volunteer their time, equipment and bravery to protect their children.
If you prefer the option of banning assault rifles, a subsidy could be provided to licensed gun shops and legitimate owners to purchase their stock, perhaps for the military, perhaps for destruction, and also eliminate all unlicensed gun shows or straw purchases. This would incentivize people who want guns to go through the proper channels of background checks and gradually increase sales for these gun shops even without assault rifles in their stock.
Simplistic? Yes. Naive? Yes. Full of disastrous dissent? Yes. Got a better idea to start?