Or go shoot up a grocery store. Or go shoot up a night club. Or go shoot into houses at random. Or go do some drive-by shootings. Or go shoot at a birthday party. Or . .
All places more likely to have someone else who could shoot them.
The aim should be to remove schools as the obvious soft target.
I'd rather have half a dozen adults shot than 20 kids, and the evidence is that they rarely shoot that many because people can and do shot back.
No infamy, no one remembers you, no incentive.
But a person advocating for gun rights while the bodies are still warm is perfectly acceptable and reasonable?
Again, it's not advocating for gun rights. It's being practical. You are simply not going to remove weapons from the US, so any solution that involves waving a magic wand to remove them is childish and unhelpful. You certainly don't get to be critical of people who are putting forward workable solutions and impugn their motives.
Start with the problem and goal:
- You cannot remove the guns from society, ao assume that "bad guys" will get access to them
- You want to prevent massacres of school-children who are a soft target
The only options are to protect them more, by making schools more secure and / or have someone there to make them less of a soft-target by letting them fire back.
You are assuming that if someone can't attack the soft-target of a school that they will go attack someplace else. Which means you ignore WHY they go shoot up a school, which takes us to the media - why did we see this shit-stain's photo? Sports media don't show pitch invaders because it removes one of the incentives for people doing it. They shouldn't be allowed to be irresponsible ... but then does anyone believe they don't really want things like this? They rub their hands 'cause it will be a ton of clicks and views.
Take it to an extreme: do people ever try to do mass shootings at police stations? If not, why not?