I am not going to make a Constitutional argument, because unfortunately we are living in a society that disregards it or perverts its content in order to promote the agenda of whoever brandishes it.
On the subject of mental health: according to British psychiatrist Dr. David Healey, founder of RxISK.org, an independent website for researching and reporting on prescription drugs, 90 percent of school shootings over the last decade have been linked to antidepressant drugs.  
Unfortunately, mental health cannot be legislated. It is perhaps a symptom of moral decay which also cannot be legislated.
On the subject of school safety: the fact that gun free zone legislation, (having proven to be at best ineffective and at worst an invitation to tragedy), is not even being put on the table for the consideration of repeal, reveals the truly political nature of this debate.
From our nation's start, there has been a political debate over the role of government. The Jeffersonians believed in a free society, in which the people took responsibility for their own lives, and the roll of government was to ensure that the individual was protected from intervention against their freedoms.
Hamilton and his followers wanted to rebuild the British government, through which they could impose their plan on everyone's lives. This debate has never been settled. Today we have two parties that claim to take one of these two sides, however, it seems we have compromised ourselves much more toward Hamilton's ideal. In order to achieve the strong centralized government that Hamilton wanted, the citizenry must be disarmed as a prerequisite. History is replete with examples of dictators disarming citizens in order to enact objectionable policies without fear of revolution. If our goal was honestly pure school safety, we would repeal the gun free zone legislation, which has shown to invite these attacks, and reject the failed gun ban which was in effect during Columbine.
On the subject of gun control, why does anyone need an AR15 or a 30-round magazine? We can start to answer this by asking the police. Police carry these so called assault weapons to protect themselves from the criminals. We understand that the police could be outgunned by the criminals, but why don't we understand that before the call to the police is made, the citizen faces the very same criminal that the police will. The answer is that those who support this double standard are those that fight for a powerful centralized government that can impose its agenda on us all by having the monopoly on force.
Angela Campetti
West Simsbury