Gun Laws and Schools: Policy, Protection, and Prevention in 2026

A National Crisis That Hits the Classroom

In 2025 to 2026, the phrase “guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States” hardened into a grim reality. Firearm-related fatalities among minors remain alarmingly high, with roughly seven children under 18 dying from gunfire each day in 2023. Between 2013 and 2023, nearly 21,000 young people were lost to gun violence. Those numbers are not just statistics—they are empty desks in classrooms, communities grieving classmates, and families struggling with unimaginable loss. The crisis has forced schools, lawmakers, and parents to confront the question of how best to protect students, even as political divides complicate solutions.

The Federal Framework: Laws That Draw the Line

At the federal level, two laws have long formed the backbone of school firearm restrictions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 makes it illegal for unauthorized individuals to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds, while the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires states receiving federal education funds to expel any student who brings a gun to school for at least one year, with only limited exceptions. These measures create a clear legal boundary, but they focus on punishment after the fact rather than prevention. Enforcement varies widely, and critics argue that they are reactive tools in a crisis that demands proactive strategies.

Prevention on the Policy Front

In recent years, prevention has become a central theme in policy discussions. Safe storage laws—sometimes called child access prevention (CAP) laws—require gun owners to keep firearms secured and inaccessible to minors. Research shows that in most school shootings committed by students, the firearm came from the shooter’s home or that of a relative. By enforcing safe storage, lawmakers hope to close off that path entirely.

Red flag laws, which allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others, have also gained traction. In 2018, only five states had them; by 2024, that number had risen to 21, including Michigan and Minnesota. Data suggests that states with stronger gun safety measures, including storage and red flag provisions, tend to have lower rates of youth firearm deaths. Meanwhile, some states moving in the opposite direction—loosening restrictions and allowing more firearms near schools—have experienced increases in youth gun homicides.

Arming Teachers or Building Trust?

The most contentious proposals often involve the role of firearms inside schools themselves. Some lawmakers have advocated for arming teachers as a deterrent and line of defense against school shooters. Proponents frame this as a practical response to the slow arrival of law enforcement during emergencies. But educators, students, and survivors have repeatedly pushed back. Abbey Clements, a teacher who survived the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, has been outspoken in her opposition, arguing that teachers receive nowhere near the level of firearms training police officers do, and that the presence of more guns in classrooms would heighten risks, particularly for students of color who already face disproportionate discipline and suspicion in schools.

Critics also worry about the psychological impact—how the presence of weapons changes the atmosphere of learning spaces and feeds a culture of fear.

States Investing in Prevention

Instead, some states are choosing to invest in programs designed to address violence before it reaches the point of a lockdown. Michigan’s new school safety package, signed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2025, dedicates over $1.6 billion to initiatives like secure storage education, local safety programs, and the creation of a School Safety and Mental Health Commission. At the federal level, the School Violence Prevention Act, introduced in June 2025, proposes funding for counseling, mentorship, and school-based mental health services aimed at students who may be at risk of committing violence.

This shift toward early intervention reflects growing acknowledgment that the roots of school shootings often stretch far beyond security gaps—they involve mental health struggles, bullying, social isolation, and family crises.

When Tragedy Drives Policy: The Georgia Example

The urgency of prevention has been underscored by tragedies like the Apalachee High School shooting in Georgia in late 2024, which left four people dead. Survivors, grieving families, and lawmakers responded by calling for tax credits for gun safes, penalties for unsafe storage, and better coordination between schools and law enforcement when credible threats arise. The legislative proposals emerging from that tragedy demonstrate how school shootings can serve as both a devastating blow to communities and a catalyst for change.

The Case for a Layered Approach

Experts in school safety emphasize that true prevention requires a layered approach. That means not only secure storage laws and red flag provisions, but also well-trained crisis intervention teams in schools, threat assessment protocols that balance safety with student rights, and environments where students feel comfortable reporting concerns.

Research from Everytown for Gun Safety warns against placing too much emphasis on active shooter drills or arming staff, noting that these measures can create unintended harm, including heightened anxiety and trauma, especially if implemented poorly. The organization instead advocates for strategies that keep firearms out of the wrong hands to begin with, paired with robust mental health and support systems for students.

Looking Ahead: Safety Through Care, Not Fear

The debate over how to make schools safe is unlikely to end soon. On one side, advocates for expanded gun access argue that more armed personnel—whether police officers or teachers—will deter attacks. On the other hand, prevention-focused voices maintain that fewer guns, paired with early intervention and community investment, will save more lives. The difference between these visions is more than ideological; it represents competing philosophies about whether safety is best achieved through force or care.

What is clear is that the stakes are as high as they have ever been. Every time a shooting makes headlines, the same questions return: How can we stop the next one? How do we protect students without turning schools into fortresses? And can we address the broader social and mental health issues that often precede violence? Until lawmakers, educators, and communities can align on answers, students will continue to bear the weight of these unresolved debates—walking into classrooms each morning with the hope that today will not be the day their school makes the news.