Reading through some of the later postings, excluding pinkytoe's gibberish, i think we are all more or less in agreement that law-abiding citizens should have the right to own and carry firearms to protect themselves, their families, and potentially other members of society, should a need arise. Now, to make it clear, we are talking about the use of deadly force as a last resort in order to protect innocent lives from grave and imminent danger; a situation so 'bad' that there are no other counter-means against. In light of recent fully automatic weapons, assault rifle, etc. debates, it also makes sense to at the very least make those weapons legal and 'widely available' for purchase, and ownership to the law-abiding citizens that can mitigate reasonable and expected threats encountered in the current environment, i.e. semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, etc. Hence, the fully automatic weapons may require more stringent regulation in this case (as they already do), which is fine in my book. Bottom line is that an area that has armed and trained (even in the basic way) law-abiding individuals can be reasonably expected to have less bullshit happen in it; at least once the word gets out that folks are 'packing'. When it comes to protecting various resources, be it schools, colleges, and even gov't assets, no security perimeter is impenetrable. Increased protection efforts, i.e. better trained and equipped guard force, intrusion detection systems, access controls etc. mean increase in costs associated with securing certain assets. And even by having a decent guard force in place, it is highly unlikely that a diligently prepared attack, executed by a formidable foe, can be repelled without loss of life. Hence, when it comes to schools for example, unless we erect hesco barriers around each educational institution, implement FPCON Delta-type posture, have skilled marksmen and guard force in place, to include foot/vehicle patrols, etc. bad things will happen occasionally to good people and there is not much one can do. So, with that said, we, as a nation should not freak out and aim our indistinguishable anger and confusion toward firearms as a whole, but rather understand that certain aspects of life cannot be completely controlled and that even despite drug free zones, firearms ownership limitations or bans, those with a criminal intent, will continue to attempt to get their way. It seems like the gun control proponents want to be a 100% proactive on the issue that does not, and never will have a 100% solution.
