Bad choice of example, then. Restricting things that are uniquely and critical to planning and executing school shootings is a highly desirable outcome for regulation, in the eyes of a society that desires its youth to grow up without constant threat of murder at their mandatory educational institutions. That desire is not particularly uniform in the U.S. right now, in contrast with much of the world. Choosing murder sprees as an example supports regulations that have societal safety benefits, which is the opposite of what was intended. Perhaps a different example might have the desired effect?