That's it, extrapolate your own wacked-out conclusions from an article pointing out the fact that the news media won't mention when guns are used responsibly to stop crimes. Yes, let's arm all children in school... sure, that's exactly what I'm saying... how'd you ever forking guess? Good lord, is that what you think the article is really trying to say? If your reasoning abilities have that far to go before engaging in a simple discussion of the media's blatant omission of facts pertinent to a story in order to advance a leftist agenda, then the issue really isn't worth discussing, is it?

Amazing--The majority of responses appear to be in favor of allowing the gunman to continue shooting while trying to reason with him to put the gun down--After all two wrongs don't make a right, and what kind of message would we be sending the world if we used a gun to kill someone who's using a gun to kill someone--To liberals, both guns are equally evil, and a few more bullets in a few more innocent brains is a more than fair price to pay for there being two less guns available to stop the crime--I mean, what if a toddler had broken into the car and used the gun to shoot himself? What if a criminal had broken into the car and shot even more people? What if a dog opened the car door, took the gun in his mouth, pulled the trigger with his paw, and shot a hole in the gas tank, causing the car to burst into flames release harmful ozone into the atmosphere? That's too heavy a price to pay. There's plenty of humans, so we won't miss a few... But mother earth, well, there's only one of her. (See, I'm using the same logic to extrapolate a ridiculously radical conclusion from your agruments--Fun to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd, isn't it?)