To play devil's advocate, as you yourself mentioned (I take you weren't being sarcastic), words wouldn't have worked on Adam Lanza, the Aurora fake-Joker guy (man, already forgot his name), or the Virginia Tec guy. Short of keeping e-z-slaughter guns away from them - or any kind of gun - or catching and treating their very poor mental health, or designing escape routes or protections into the building structures, the only way anyone was going to stop these two (or the Columbine shooters) was with another gun. Yeah, yeah, there was chaos, darkness, and smoke and innocent bystanders could very well be shot in a firefight, but my point is that words aren't a reliable protection once the shooter has fired the first bullet, or at least they wouldn't be better than firing back.

Now that we've shown that talking to the deranged shooter is effective, will the staff at The Stranger grinding their axe?

Will they stop supporting ineffective feel-good bullshit that does practically nothing to stop gun massacres while restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Didn't think so.

@2 - I'm a responsible drinker, but I still think drunk driving laws are a good idea.

How to stop school shooting deaths ...

http://youtu.be/J-FG9ZKerGM?t=3m50s

Finally, text books are good for something!!!

Even against a 500 S&W Magnum.

Quiz: Are 5 rounds a "high capacity" magazine when one round can go through about 10 kids??

Words don't kill people - people who talk kill people!

1, 2, & 4: The fact that we even need to "talk down" a high-school shooter with a gun should be sufficiently disturbing to make you rethink your reality.

How about a world where that doesn't have to happen instead? How about instead of piling treatments on top of the symptoms, we go after some root causes for a while?

@ 5 - Wasn't there an armed guard on duty at Columbine? Sure did a lot of good in stopping that massacre, didn't it?

all the victims were armed with words, even che children.

@8, yes, there was. He was on break at the time it happenened, but quickly returned to duty thereafter. Which may well have been the reason why Harris and Klebold shot themselves. Your point?

@10 that there is a mighty handy conclusion you've leaped to. One that conveniently supports your side.

And there's absolutely no evidence to support it. One data point doesn't make a conclusion. One unverifiable data point is horseshit.

@1: i like your "keeping E-Z slaughter guns away from them" option. let's do that.

adam lanza
james holmes
jared loughner
seung-hui cho

@3 we have laws against shooting people and laws about crazy people owning guns already, so I'm not sure what your point is. If we're going to analogize drunk driving and shooting sprees, the alcohol isn't the gun, the car is. Nobody's arguing that people with obvious impairments should not be stopped from behaving recklessly with a weapon. What we're arguing about is whether banning cars would be an appropriate response to a drunk driving event.

It would be stupid, of course, but it's what you're apparently arguing.

@13: then our laws against crazy people acquiring & owning guns aren't working, and should be enhanced, with, yes, more inconvenience for the sane as a consequence.

you could make the process require a year in the active militia for all i care, since i am not buying a fucking gun. how james holmes & seung-hui cho got their arsenals was ridiculous.