BTW, Sandy Hook Elementary did not involve an assault rifle. It was left in the car the shooter drove to the school and the coroners reports showed no large (rifle) caliber bullets in any of the victims or anywhere in the school.

This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.)

But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point.

Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around.

This what you were looking for?

Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic...

Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not!
-Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one.

It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue.

Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons.

All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's)

So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make?

But i guess I have to agree with the OP in that he put his foot in his mouth on this one. He could have phrased things more "politically". Although i suppose that wasn't his style...

I guess that depends on the law being issued...

So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"?

Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well...

So how would one take all the guns away?

We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments.

Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence...

Still not sure what you meant about the nukes, and war as it would be easier to send nukes then ground troops in either confrontation... But we can move on from that. (The fault may be of my own)

Either way, there are two very big assumptions you seem to make with your statements. #1 being that law enforcement are all responsible people, have never done, and will never do any harm to the populace (despite the fact that they came from the same population). #2 That gun laws have a direct correlation to gun violence.

I agree with the notion of providing mental health care completely. This is where the whole debate needs to focus, in my opinion. This would theoretically separate who you are calling "irresponsible" citizens from the "responsible" ones. A means of directing the energy to the source of our violence instead of casting blanket policies that limit that power and rights of the public as a whole.

However where i disagree is with the need for new gun control measures, as the measures already in place would potentially prevent a mentally dysfunctional person from obtaining said firearms (from legal means). For instance; the background check given to anyone buying a new firearm already checks for things like restraining orders, violent histories, and previous felony charges. It is still any medical professional's responsibility to report any statement made by a client (or anyone by the matter) that would lead him/her to believe this person intends to do harm. This is then made accessible to any law enforcement agency. Maybe an awareness campaign to enforce rules in place?

There are always back doors to obtaining these firearms, whether by theft, or by borrowing them friend friends/relatives. This is difficult to regulate without taking away from those who are "responsible" as well. Even then, there is no indication, or information that can support the hypothesis that new restrictions would even help achieve that goal. Under those realizations i cannot condone (or even understand) any further restriction on the general populace.