Hey, let's try another thought experiment.
"Meh, not anutha wuunnnnn..."
Yes, anuth...um, another one. We can even do this for real in the physical world but experiments like this can be dangerous. We need two people...
If you like. Let's place them facing each other about an arms length apart. Thing One will stand with his hands clasped behind his back...
No, that won't be necessary if Thing One will just follow the rules of the experiment. Now, he is not allowed to move any part of his body except for his mouth which he can only use to speak. Thing Two's objective is...
"What's an 'objective'?"
It's his goal. What we need him to do. His objective is to place his hand over Thing One's mouth. Thing One is only allowed to try and talk Thing Two out of placing his hand over Thing One's mouth. What do you think will happen?
"Thing Two will easily place his hand over Thing One's mouth and Thing One will be forced to shut up and then they will start to fight and turn the whole place into a mess..."
Okay, what would happen if we allowed Thing One to do something to stop Thing Two from placing his hand over Thing One's mouth?
"Well, Thing One would probably grab Thing Two's arm and stop him. Then Thing One would start to yell at Thing Two and then they would start to fight and turn the whole place into a mess..."
We get the idea. Now what did we learn from this experiment?
"That Thing One and Thing Two like to fight?"
No, we learned that it takes physical action to stop a physical action and all the talking, or writing, in the world is pretty useless at stopping someone who is set on doing something. There are a lot of brave men, and a few women, some with prior military and/or police experience, that are volunteering to stand guard at the public schools, armed if they are allowed, to physically stop any more bad people from hurting the youngsters that go there. Our benevolent government and school officials are ridiculing the idea as preposterous and are not planning to let it work.
"Would it work?"
We have this institutional "default setting" in our modern civilized society that causes people to assume that good people using guns to protect themselves and others is as evil as bad people who use guns to commit crimes against others. For many the response to demand new, excessively restrictive laws on the ownership of firearms has become a trained reflex. We have to reset that mindset to something a bit more archaic, yet more practical and effective.
"But couldn't we pass more laws that might work?"
Isn't it against the law to steal someone's firearm? Isn't it also illegal to carry a firearm onto the premises of a school? Isn't it unlawful to shoot people and kill them, too?
How are those laws working out for everybody?
Like our little experiment showed, it takes physical action to stop physical action. Words spoken into the air or written down on paper have never stopped anyone from doing anything. It makes no sense that our benevolent government officials, if they are truly concerned for the safety of the children, would not allow this to work.
"Maybe they are afraid."
"If private individuals working outside the establishment's system, alone or with others, armed with their own weapons could effectively protect themselves and innocent third parties from harm caused by violent people, wouldn't that burst the delusional bubble of legitimacy for the government's monopoly over the use of force within its jurisdiction?"
Why, yes. Yes it would. I think you have learned much here today.
"Can we go to the park now?"
"And ice cream. Can we get ice cream, too?"
Yes. Yes, we can.
"I like it when we have these little talks. Don't you?"
Why, yes. Yes I do...