An “assault rifle” ban would have been extremely unlikely to have changed the Uvalde outcome for the better. Being in close and enclosed quarters as he was, he could have likely caused as much if not more carnage with 2 or more semi auto handguns and a bunch of pre-loaded magazines. And I think it’s pretty safe to assume that he would have still carried out his plan and done it that way had he not had access to an AR-15 or similar. He would’ve had greater freedom of movement and even less likelihood of being halted by a jam with the 2 or more handguns.

In a scenario where AR-15’s are taken away (these do not meet the definition of assault rifle fwiw), the next school shooting will take place similarly as outlined above and the left being emboldened by the removal of AR-15s will come for the hand guns once enough school shootings are perpetrated in such a way.

The answer here is not what the left proposes, but rather to either declare schools no longer to be gun free zones or if they are to remain gun free zones, an armed and secure perimeter needs to be erected around them (seems a rather daunting task to me). Anything other than these two scenarios are just “feel good” solutions that do nothing to help mitigate the total damage and frequency of occurrences or they create entirely new and probably worse problems.

Clearly no viable solution can completely eliminate the possibility of another such event, but moving the age of purchase for AR-15s from 18 to 21 by itself only serves to make those in favor feel better and accomplishes very little if anything at all.

---