Why is it easier to bury children than high powered guns?

Regardless of whatever laws you put up or punishments you push, a psycho who is determined to kill a schoolkid is going to. I don't care what measures are placed. On that same note, underground trade will do what it has always done, and people will still own and use.

The only benefit from having an unarmed public is having a public that is more susceptible to the folks who engage with the underground.

Let us converse peacefully and without trolling one another. I promise to be nice:

Why should we have nuclear arms control?

-because we like the world and we do not want doomsday devices to be well spread and more common, because it takes a lot more effort to control them if their widespread and they are much more devastating compared to conventional fire arms. Normal guns are common and yes, they are hard to control, but they save live: here are some stats you can research in your own good time:

Every 13 seconds, an American gun owner uses her or his firearm in defense against a criminal.

Women use handguns 416 times each day in defense against rapists, which is a dozen times more often than rapists use a gun in the course of a rape.

Handguns are used 1145 times a day against robbers. Handguns are used 1510 times a day in defense against criminal assaults.

A gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as likely to be used in a defense against a criminal than it is to cause the death of an innocent victim in that household

In American History: 91 spree killers

over 400 years and several hundred thousand square miles: 90

3 stopped by citizens (not counting potentials)

If mutual anilation is the goal of the NRA and gun lovers then why stop the spread of nuclear arms? How'd you like Iran with a nuke NRA/gun lovers? Would that make you feel safer?

Nukes and guns carry little comparison. Guns are methodic and controlled, and relatively small damage can be done in comparison to human population. Imagine if sandy hook was nuked.......

Guns also save lives regularly because you are dealing with individuals and not masses, so it is definitely a different game, in which nukes as preventatives and safeguards, is very rare, with the only one time in history counting as a protective measure was against japan, nowadays both sides can fire back regardless.

The NRA is not for MAD but for deterrence and protection. Imagine if you were about to be killed and some NRA member saved your life. That is a common occurance in this country by the way. Guns do save lives not destroy them (at least not in the same weight:far more good comes than bad). Imagine if you were about to be raped but you had a gun ready. More than likely you wouldn't even need to shoot.

Also, these psychos do not care for the law (given) and it doesn't matter what legislation is passed, if he hasn't a gun he'll get one, and that very same legislation prevents a good guy from possibly stopping him.

I think we need to have a fresh look at the technology of guns today. And a common sense approach on what our founding fathers defined as a gun and what we have today. There is a significant difference.

Um, no: not really. Our founding fathers wanted our citizens armed to the teeth (or some of them did) because they realized the importance of weapons. Weapons level the playing field between the weak and meek and the bullies in the world.

Also, people should have the right to be paranoid, and should have the right to believe that the end is coming, if they want, I don't agree with it but I support their right to think what they want. And if that -faith requires anti-zombie guns, so be it.

And I don't get why we can't have the conversation now. You are "AGAINST" the control of guns, but "FOR" control of freedom speech. Those dead children need a voice of reason:

I am equally for both. You may be upset because I disagree, but I take care to listen to your entire argument. You bring up valid points, and after long deliberation I will quietly disagree. Logic is my mother supreme, and this is a complex matter that needs multi-faceted reasoning. If this killer, got a bunch of friends to kill 20 people with musket fire, would it have been any better?Or suppose he doesn't get a gun but builds a bomb? These people exist, and you cannot remove them by removing guns. That is not so much of an opinion but a testable hypothesis, with historical consideration.

The deaths are tragic, and I mourn. And radical measures should not be taken on the rest of the human race because some sick perverted man decided he wanted to end their lives.

Imagine a society where everyone is helpless

Everyone fears government

Everyone depends on government

You have a liberal's dream world.

Why not at least wait until after the funerals to have this discussion.

It is not a matter of "need" It is a matter of the 2nd Amendment. Read it some time.

No one is going to take away your guns. Stop the fear mongering.