An armed teacher or security guard has, in all likelihood, the same chance in reducing the number of dead as a ban on certain weapons, magazines or ammo. An armed guard or teacher with an armor piercing round in his or her chest won't save many lives. It is all a cost benefit analysis. Guns aren't important enough to me to either not take action that might save some lives or to have armed teachers or guards. Guns are that important to you. I imagine, we will use our rather flawed representative system to find out what most of the people believe and what ever the result is will be tested by the courts for its constitutionality.<quoted text>
A little harder--yes, but not an elimination of them. In Connecticut, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the scene. That's when the shooter took his own life. 20 minutes with any weapon is enough time to create a mass killing. However, an armed security guard or teacher with a permit to have a weapon could have ended that streak in much less time. Perhaps in less than five minutes.
(And I have yet to see anyone in favor of gun control claim it will eliminate murder. That's a fabrication of Rush and the NRA).