Teachers and principals may soon be packing heat in the classroom, if Oklahoma State Rep. Mark McCullough (R) has his way. According to a report by The Oklahoman, the lawmaker “pledged to introduce legislation in the upcoming session to allow principals and teachers who go through training to be able to carry firearms on school property.” McCullough made the now-familiar argument that people intent on mass shootings are unlikely to follow the law:

This sacrosanct notion that we cannot do anything but have gun-free zones is just a fallacy. What we’re dealing with here is people who don’t care. They’ve erased their moral compass. They don’t care about the law, and they are intent on horrific acts.

Oklahoma’s teachers appear to disagree. Ed Allen, president of the Oklahoma City American Federation of Teachers, told The Oklahoman that “Schools can be emotional places at times. Kids can get emotional. Teachers can get emotional. Parents come in emotional. Throw weapons into that mix, and it can be dangerous.” Research backs Allen up: there is very little support for the idea that concealed carry decreases gun homicides, and significant evidence that increasing the spread of guns leads to more death.

Several other state legislatures are considering similar legislation, cheered on by a number of Republicans and pro-gun activists.

Mass murder is a sad but inevitable consequence of the wonderful Second Amendment, according to an inhouse editorial in one of America’s leading conservative magazines. National Review’s editors, writing in response to the recent massacre in Connecticut, delivered a full-throated defense of the right to own guns. When confronted with the reality of mass-killings, the editors said “too bad:”

The practical consequence of living for nearly two-and-a-half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns…Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutional process. But the guns of America aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and generic calls to “do something” — even insofar as doing something is desirable — must reckon with this fact.

On Friday, the president promised “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment. If the possibility of terrors like Newtown are a reminder of why we need politics, their reality is a reminder that politics can do only so much.

The editorial’s authors would do well to familiarize themselves with recent history before they make claims about what’s in the Constitution. In 2008 — which was much more recently than “nearly two-and-a-half centuries” ago — the Supreme Court held for the very first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm. More importantly, that decision also gave special constitutional status to the most commonly used murder weapon in the country — handguns. So America has only lived under the “benevolent protection” the National Review seeks to protect for about four years. Prior to 2008, a total ban on handguns and other particularly dangerous firearms was entirely permissible.

It’s not clear why the National Review thinks their argument is supposed to convince people that the Second Amendment is a good thing. As Politico’s Dylan Byers writes, their argument essentially boils down to “preventing more tragedies might be possible, but it is not possible unless you repeal the Second Amendment, which you cannot do. Thus, therefore, ergo: The tragedy in Newtown, Conn., is a price that is paid for protection of the Second Amendment.”

Ultimately, however, not even this Supreme Court believes in the kind of Second-Amendment-run-amok that the National Review favors. Though it’s true that the Supreme Court’s overbroad interpretation of the Second Amendment limits policymakers’ options for addressing gun violence, there are a number of clearly permissible gun regulations that have been proven to reduce deaths from gun violence.

A growing number of gun advocates are calling for sensible gun safety regulations in the aftermath of Friday’s tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) — a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association — spoke out in favor of regulating assault weapons during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, calling such laws “common sense.”

“I want to call all our friends in the NRA, sit down and have this discussion,” he explained. “Bring them into it. They have to be at the table. We all have to”:

MANCHIN: I just came with my family from deer hunting. I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway. It’s common sense. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.

Manchin’s comments followed Joe Scarbarough’s declaration of support for gun safety. The former Florida Congressman received the NRA’s highest ratings over his four terms in Congress, but on Monday he opened Morning Joe with a monologue in which he admitted that the tragedy “changed everything.” Scarbrough called for a comprehensive approach that addresses what he called “the toxic brew of a violent popular culture, a growing mental health cris, and the proliferation of combat-styled weapons”:

SCARBOROUGH: I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across america. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-styled, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas. It’s time for politicians to start focusing more on protecting our school yards than putting together their next fund-raiser.

The NRA has remained silent in the wake of the tragedy, pulling down its Facebook page, while its Congressional allies refused to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows. But gun safety advocates aren’t about to let the urgent moment of action pass. During a prayer vigil in Newtown last President Obama promised to “use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.” “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard,” he asked. Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

Meanwhile, lawmakers plan to introduce a renewed ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Advocates have also called on states to post their mental health records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and additional legislation requiring full background check on all gun transactions. Polls show that even NRA members back these reforms.

A man equipped with a 47 gun arsenal was arrested on Sunday after threatening to kill children at a local elementary school. The Cedar Lake, Indiana man had also threatened his wife:

Cedar Lake police were called to the home of 60-year-old Von I. Meyer early Friday after he allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire. A police statement says Meyer also said he would enter Jane Ball Elementary School and “kill as many people as he could.” Authorities found 47 guns and ammunition worth over $100,000.

This incident comes right on the heels of the arrest of an Oklahoma man planning a school shooting and the horrific murders in Newtown, Connecticut. Though America has suffered a spate of mass shootings and common sense gun regulations effectively reduce murder rates, several Republicans and gun advocates have responded to Friday’s tragedy by calling for relaxing restrictions on guns in schools.

Hours after the terrible shooting in a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school, the Michigan House Republicans issued demanded that Governor Rick Snyder (R) sign a bill that would make it easier for people to receive a gun permit and open up “gun free zones,” including schools. A statement attributed to Press Secretary Ari B. Adler shrugged off any link between guns in schools and school shootings:

What happened in Connecticut, however, is not because of nor related in any way to actions taken by the Michigan House yesterday in approving Senate Bill 59. …

It is the belief of many representatives in our caucus that it is criminals who have no intention of following any law that are the perpetrators of such heinous crimes as school shootings. Strict gun-control laws do not stop criminals from committing evil acts, they merely infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens who might be able to take action against evil if given the chance.

The vast majority of mass killers in the United States use legally acquired weapons. A significant body of evidence suggests the wide availability of guns is strongly linked with higher murder rates.

Adler’s statement concludes by saying “Regardless of where anyone stands on the gun-rights debate, however, we will encourage everyone to try to refrain from politicizing the tragedy in Connecticut.”