This is in itself a part of the problem when it comes to the current society's failure to address the needs of children. Schools, due to budget cuts, have consolidated too much in many states. In 1930 there were about 248,000 schools serving a far smaller student population of about 46 million max (fewer since many people exited after 8th grade.) That means the average American school had about 185 students in it, and the staff were able to more personally interact with the students. In 2021 there were only 98,755 schools serving 73 million students. That means the average school had 740 students making this a much more daunting task which requires very inefficient administrative bureaucracies. This makes social alienation and general atomization a much more widespread problem. Of course it isn't the only change, or cause, but it is one among many. 

Unfortunately those on the right don't want to recognize that these social problems have to be solved somehow. Either you fund public goods and services that meet people's basic needs and create socially integrated, emotionally developed, and mentally healthy young adults who aren't violent, or you have to deal with the social ailments having poorly developed young adults causes -- such as increased aggregate violence. Too often though the right just ignores it as "not my problem" until of course it personally affects them. 

Rather than guards (not that it is a horrible idea), having staff that meet the developmental needs of young adults would be a better use of extra resources.

I don't see how a country protecting their children in schools makes a bad image.

Could be done, yes.  Good idea, yes.  Not sure it is a cure all solution.  But better than nothing.  

This wouldnt have happend if those kids would have been allowed to carry their gun with them to school.

I feel for these kids/families

There is nothing that will result in change.  There just isn't.  To your point, dead children aren't enough...  and if that isn't enough, what is?  The answer is nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Sandy Hook happened 10 years ago and here we are.    

There is nothing that will convince Americans to restrict firearms.  Nothing.  They would rather die in the streets than give up guns.  Perhaps this sounds absurd to non Americans, but this is reality in the States.  

Apparently he was bullied for stuttering. However in that situation, you would think he would go after the bullies. I also read that supposedly he cut up his face and got the guns for his birthday. You would think someone with such mental issues should have been looked at closely especial with guns in his hands.

Can't really feel sorry for him as what he did was senseless to those kids. We can't also say conclusively that him being bullied caused him to act the way he did.

All that can be done is assume it did, and if so how do you address the bullying problem. Fix that issue and see if school shootings go down significantly, if they do then you can conclude that is indeed was the cause in most those past cases.

In the end pro gun lobbyists will try to justify his actions and why it isn't the guns fault.

One of the biggest sources of mass-shootings in the last ten years is the rise of the misogynistic incel movement and its bizarre ideology. More really needs to be done to disrupt this movement. When people hate themselves (which is pretty much the core feature of Incels) and think there is no other option they are willing to lash out in whichever way makes them feel as if they are taking control or power. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the motive for this shooter given the information about the self mutilation of his face and the Incel obsession with facial structure. 

I highly recommend the Contrapoints video on the topic of Incels. 

Automatic weapons were effectively banned in the U.S with the Firearm Owners Protection Act. In order to get one you need to go through a 6 month FBI background check and pay for a $200 tax stamp. All automatic weapons made after 1986 are illegal for civilian purchase, and everything else that had been grandfathered from before then is very expensive ($20,000 - $30,000.) Bump stocks, which convert semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons were banned via ATF regulation and the courts have held the ban so far. But the ban is hard to enforce because bump stocks can be made very easily and cheaply. 

The difficulty with banning semi-automatic weapons is that they are the most common weapon-category produced by manufacturers and the Supreme Court in D.C vs. Heller decided that any weapon in common-use is protected by the Second Amendment. Plus there are about 300 million semi-automatic guns in the U.S, and rounding them all up would cause considerable problems given the unconsented policing-landscape of the U.S and the strong ability for organized crime to develop around their restriction (like with drugs and alcohol prohibition.) If semi-automatic weapons were banned when there were few of them, like what was done with automatic weapons, it would be pretty easy to enforce, but since there are so many, the problems with enforcement arise. You might observe a situation where white people who live in rural areas where police don't want to enforce gun laws are affected very little, while BIPOC people who live in jurisdictions where police are more committed (mostly urban areas) in enforcing them feeling the brunt of these new laws. This of course leads to many other inequalities, and there is a widespread movement currently to move away from mass-incarceration, not create new crimes where there weren't formerly any that will almost certainly disproportionately harm non-white communities and persons. 

What are some ideas for enforcing bans of semi-automatic weapons that would get rid of about 300 million guns, in a way that doesn't disproportionately harm marginalized people, soon enough before the next political cycle leads to the repealing of such a law? 

Incredibly heartbreaking. An elementary school of all places.

My heart and prayers to all the families and closed ones affected by this inconceivably abominable tragedy.

The country its your right to bear arms. So a license to a right would never fly nationally. 

So having armed personel in schools is the next best thing to me. To me gunfree zones in a country like this makes no sense. May as well call them sitting duck zones.