Apparently the FBI had been contacted multiple times about the shooter. Once by a YouTuber who received a comment "I'm going to be a professional school shooter" by a user of the same name as the shoot on one of his videos in September, and again by a close family member in January. Also, the police had responded to his house on 39 separate occasions over a 7 year period through 2016.
Source:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html
I'm all for stricter gun laws and better enforcement of them, limiting magazine size and getting rid of AR-15 style assault rifles is a fine start. Reducing the amount of damage a mentally disturbed kid can do would be good. But the problem is that these mass shooting are a tiny fraction of gun related deaths in the US, the vast majority, I believe over 99%, are not with assault rifles, so this doesn't really even begin to address the root of the problem.
In this case we have the disturbing failure of the police and FBI to properly address the situation, we have the shooter being cleared by his therapist according to FoxNews, and another kid with a disturbing home life on medication.
Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons; in fact, the more nukes we have the safer we will all be. And per the very first piece of legislation signed by The Donald in January 2017, the mentally ill should not be restricted from having access to nuclear weapons.
This doesn't really help in deciding where the line should be. Pro-gun people could, and do, point out that common anti-gun arguments could also be applied to knives. It's actually not very helpful and mostly missing the real issue. Most people agree about the everything except the stuff in the middle.
knifes(Cars?)->hunting rifle(Trucks?)->handgun-> semiautomatic assault rifle->automatic->tank->nuclear weapon
The question is where the line is and why. Banning semiautomatic assault weapons doesn't really address the root of the gun problem, although I'm all for advocating this (not with references to nuclear weapons though) and it would be a start to reducing mass-shooting related death. However, the way bigger problem is handguns and it doesn't seem realistic as of yet to ban them, and could probably result in a very dangerous backlash. Plus we already have over 300,000,000 guns and there is a big question of what to do with them. This is what I think we should be talking about.