Your friends should not forget the simple stat, that even today with everyone being armed, far more people shoot and kill themselves by accident, than are shot by someone else.

The Uvalde Police response was a poor comparison, that fiasco had nothing directly to do with guns but rather police officers not doing their jobs like they were hired to do, big difference there. Trying to use the "more guns" argument was weak in my opinion, because that overlooks the real problem there. Only speaking for myself, I never advocated for every American to carry around an AR-15, a 9mm pistol is more than adequate for self defense.

I'm curious, what would your solution to the problem be, knowing full well how if the laws fail even once that means conceivably the same could happen again? Are you going to march up to the shooter and slap them in the face demanding they stop shooting immediately? Are you going to use harsh language against them? Seriously, if you don't have at least an equal means of dealing with the situation (a gun in such scenarios), how do you rationally expect to walk away alive from such a situation? I'm trying hard to rationalize your stance, but cannot, and find this mentality where people are more than willing to just become potential victims to be profoundly disturbing.

I'm not thrilled in the least to carry when out and about, but sometimes in life you have to do some things that you don't like to do and that of which might make you feel uncomfortable, because it's probably the smarter and logical thing to do given the circumstances. You can't blame the guns when human beings don't want to do their jobs (looking at you Uvalde Police), let's get people who are armed and actually will do their jobs should the need arise. You're hearing that by the way from someone who was once a staunch gun control advocate, for what it's worth. Why do you suppose so many people were outraged by the Uvalde Police response to that school shooting? Because it's obvious had the police reacted immediately with their weapons and gear more lives probably could have been saved.

Again, I am trying real hard here to understand and rationalize your take on this subject, but I can't make any rational sense of it. The anti-gun rights crowd is so upset over citizens carrying in anticipation of random shootings, they hate the good guy with a gun argument, and yet what do we do when a random shooting takes place? You got it... we call good guys with guns (aka police) to come and neutralize the threat, in other words guns are part of the equation in dealing with such acts of violence. I'm not trying to be personal here, and speaking from someone who knows what it's like to argue from a gun control stance, that whole tirade against good guys with guns is nothing more than an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Denmark's laws in the end did not protect their citizens, and we'll never know for sure just how much better that situation would have been casualty wise had at least one citizen was packing heat. I think you are intelligent enough to realize what I just mentioned has merit to it, regardless of how you may personally feel on the matter.