I would say increasing deterrence and eliminating attractive soft targets. Strong deterrence would help prevent most unhappy people from deciding to become act

I would say increasing deterrence and eliminating attractive soft targets. Strong deterrence would help prevent most unhappy people from deciding to become active shooters. For example, if it was widely known (or at least widely believed) that active shooters would be killed and that active shooters taken alive would face swift justice with a guaranteed death penalty then fewer unhappy people would become active shooters. Certainly there would be some "suicide-by-police" types, but that would need to be addressed through other means designed to help those facing depression and suicidal ideations get mental health care. The Uvalde shooter did not have any deterrence because the police response was ridicuously bad. If police cannot or will not protect people, the people must protect themselves. Eliminating soft targets would include changes to harden the physical security of schools, churches, and other places that are "gun free" zones. "Gun free zones" are only gun-free for law-abiding citizens. They are the physical equivalent to open ports on the Internet with a default username and password. Anyone can walk in and do what they want because there is nothing to stop them. It is the same as having a "police-free" city or an "army-free" nation. A person considering becoming an active shooter should not know where they can "safely" attack and it should be difficult to get into schools, churches, etc. unless the proper procedures are followed, for example, a designated entry point, perhaps a metal detector check or something similar.