That doesn't mean I don't have a coherent argument.

I find it interesting how you, since you don't understand (or disagree with) my point, turn to argumentum ad hominem. Please tell me your logic and emotionally mature reasons for turning to personally attacking me?

Let me help you a little by explaining myself a bit further.

Look at these 4 scenarios:
1. Son has taken gun and mother is sleeping and he shoots her.
2. Mother and son have guns and they shoot at each other.
3. Neither mother nor son have guns.
4. The guns are locked in a safe where neither of them can reach them.

Situation 1 is the one that happened.

A lot of people seem to claim/think that of the possible situations, situation 2 is preferable.

I claim that situation 3 is preferable.

Basically, situation 4 is the equivalent of situation 3, as having a gun in a safe isn't going to protect anyone.

About the second scenario: A shoot out between two people means that two people are shooting at each other. In this case, that would be a mother and a son shooting at each other with guns. This doesn't mean that the mother will survive and the son will die. Maybe they'll both die. Maybe the mother will still die. Maybe the son will die.

Even if in this scenario, it's the mother who survives, do you think she'd be hailed as a hero for stopping a school shooting? Do you think anyone knows she's prevented 26 people from dying? Do you think she knows she's prevented 26 people from dying?

I mean, it sounded like you had a hard time emotionally with the image of you killing your child to heroically prevent a school shooting. The thing is, you wouldn't know.