Though your point is well-taken, I disagree with the very premise of the point here. There seems to be some belief that we can legislate away every tragedy, every unseemly situation, and every avoidable harm. I think this is a fallacious argument that requires us to sacrifice freedom for... what? A promise?

I live in Chicago, on the south side of the city (the "bad side"). As you may or may not remember, Chicago had for quite a number of years an effective handgun ban. Did that make crime any less in Chicago? Did that reduce the terrifying number of gun crimes in the city? Did it make it any less likely for kids on their way to/home from school any less likely to die from gun crimes? Nope - Chicago still remains one of the highest per-capita murder sites in the US, and much of those crimes are committed with firearms. In the middle of the summer (when kids are out of school and the weather is amenable to roaming around), it isn't unreasonable to expect to hear about 5-10 injuries or deaths from gun violence over the course of the weekend.

My point here is that I'm not convinced that restricting access to guns - a right, by the way, granted by the Constitution - necessarily results in a reduction in crime. It makes sense intuitively, but I've often found that intuitive understanding of how large collections of people work is wrong. It's simply too difficult to predict how any large number of people will respond to changes like this. This doesn't even begin to address the huge number of guns already out among the general population (more than 300 million per 2010 gun manufacturing sales data) or the difficulty of enforcing flat bans given the huge variability of gun laws in the US.

I understand the desire to want to try and "make" these situations "better," but I'm just not convinced. Where's the evidence that programs like this work? How do I know that this isn't simply an attempt to violate our rights (whether you choose to exercise them or not is another matter) in the name of the children? Is there some kind of magical forcefield surrounding college campuses these days that vaporizes guns if they're brought on campus? If not, then what's the point here? How many "school shooters," "accidents," "suicides by guns," and "bad decisions turning violent" are we actually going to be stopping here? Data exists around guns availability and suicide - having a gun in the home makes it 7 times more likely that an individual will successfully commit suicide - but does that necessarily require carte blanche restriction on owning guns? Again, a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution and interpreted to be applicable in this way by multiple courts? I think that sets a very dangerous precedent: not just for gun rights, but for the basic rights that we all value and think important to our society. Freedom is slowly eroded away by exceptions.

"Sure, you can own your guns, EXCEPT if..."

"Sure, you're free to protest, BUT you must stay within the 'free speech zone'..."

"Sure, you've got that fourth amendment right thing, EXCEPT if you're talking about electronic communications..."

I think it's important to be mindful of these issues and consider whether or not yet another exception to the basic rights our government provided to its citizens is worth it. Whether that issue is guns, free speech, the right to not be searched by police - it doesn't matter in my view. The immediate and knee-jerk desire to restrict things in the name of preventing some kind of tragedy or "for the children" should be challenged at all points.