David -- how dare you use facts and logic to make a rational case for evidence-based policy!? That is just mean.

These other poor slobs desperately want to hold on to their anti-gun bigotry and their failed policies... and if you keep showing them that they're mind-numbingly ignorant, then they might have to think for five seconds. And that's going to hurt.

Please... let's all agree to put the facts and logic away and stick to our preconceived anti-gun biases.

Giving so many people the ability to buy miltary weapons like the US M16 with big magazines to wipe out whole classroom of kids or a similar number of pedestrians on main street is sheer lunacy , and the author should be put behind bars under Australias new anti terrorists laws. The incitement to mass murder is what this writer is about

According to world statistics, America sits 12th on the list of gun related deaths, with 9.20 per 100 000 of population, with the countries above being reasonably well known for lawlessness (El Salvador and Colombia anyone?) Australia sits 50th, with 1.05 per 100 000.

To be 9x worse than Australia, something must be wrong. If it's not guns, then what is it?

In my opinion, arming everyone so that they can shoot back if something happens, is not the answer. As outlined by others here, people would be firing all over the place and confusion would reign. Also, the scope for improper gun use would increase.

Citing Israel as an example is not relevant - it's like comparing chalk and cheese. The USA is not constantly under threat by terrorists.

The argument that then only criminals would have guns is also specious, as it is rarely criminals that carry out these massacres.

Agree with hunter.
After all, Guns by themselves don't kill, the nut with his finger on the trigger does.
Guns are just tools in safe hands, as are nail guns, knives, axes, bows or fish spears.
Even so, the hands that hold all those implements, are also those who can commit atrocities with them.
If we removed all the guns, from civil law abiding society, only criminals, would own guns!
The nut job would resort to explosive indiscriminate bombs, which arguably, are much more lethal, than a single demented nutter, lose with a gun.
My bet is, if we could remove every legally owned weapon, the use of guns would increase, given the criminal element would then operate with impunity; and seems to be able to get whatever they want, even shoulder fired rocket propelled grenades or fully automatic weapons.
Everybody seems to be focused on how many bullets a weapon can spew out every minute.
Even so, one must accurately aim and squeeze the trigger.
And that is still limited by human reaction times; unless we are talking about point-blank range atrocities.
For me, it's fairly simple, none of those kids would have died, if the armed murder, had his lights blown away, even as he entered the building, in complete defiance of a no gun ordnance.
To suggest as some have, that we arm ten year olds, is so over the top, objectionable and extremely ridiculous, as to be completely unbelievable!
Save some supposedly sane people, are voicing their control freak same old same old, or so called objections?
There ought to be a refused persons register, and much smaller magazines, say just five rounds max, for vermin or feral reduction.
Gun dealers ought to be required to fit their premises with space age non invasive lie detection equipment. [Thermal imaging, computer assisted recognition.]
And then ask some loaded questions about the intended use of the products he/she sells, of every customer.
Gun control is not the answer, but keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs and criminals surely is!
Rhrosty.

"Gun control is not the answer, but keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs and criminals surely is!"
Err... keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs and criminals. would another name for that be... GUN CONTROL?
Coherent argument is not a strong suit of the gun lobby and supporters.

First about Garys comment: Interesting to note that right after he commented about anti-gun people being intolerant of opposing views and resorting to abuse to make their points, people immediately began to do just that, talking about gun owners fear of impotence and accusing them of phallus worship. Reads to me like you proved Garys rule for him.
If guns are banned in the US today, it will take decades to get the bulk of them out of the community. If guns really do pose a threat to child safety wouldn’t it make sense to arm child carers like teachers, at least until the guns are gone? This article does not suggest arming everyone in the classroom as has been suggested in this forum. It doesn’t have to result in mass shootouts either. Most teachers on staff know the other teachers at some level. If only the teacher in each class is armed she or he would soon know if the person coming through the door armed had a good reason for doing so (if there is ever a good reason).
I think that child safety should come first, given that the guns exist in the community and seem destined to be used on school kids. Or maybe all schools should be guarded by armed guards? One things for sure, trying to stop a deranged gunman with idealistic philosophies isn’t going to work.
For the record and before the abuse starts I am not a gun owner and I don't ever intend to be, but who knows.