The question urgently raised by the Littleton Colorado massacre is the best way to reduce gun violence in our society and schools. Two diametrically opposed ways have been offered.
    First, access to guns can be reasonably curtailed as in every other civilized country. The results are well known.  The other way, proposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates, is to better arm more citizens. Since the results of the present easy availability of guns is also well known the question is how many more citizens must be armed, and how well armed, to make our society and schools as safe as other civilized countries.
    It is difficult to maintain that more guns are needed: There are well over 200 million guns in private hands in the United States, at least one for every man, woman, and child; no citizens outside of a war zone have ever been better armed.  But since the average gun owner owns more than one gun, the gun advocates must mean more citizens need to own guns, and/or the present gun owners need to be able to use their guns more effectively.
    In any event this logically raises many questions, for example:  If citizens below 18 years of age cannot own and use guns, aren't they at a much greater risk because they are not armed?  And what about citizens who cannot afford guns.  Arguably they have the greatest need for protection.  And what about the elderly.  They have to pass a vision test to get a license to drive a car, but wouldn't requiring a similar test for them to own a gun put them at risk as well.  And what about people who don't want to carry a gun, on religious or other principals.  Wouldn't they also be at greater risk?
    And since guns locked in a cabinet at home aren't readily available to stop a criminal or disturbed person on a rampage, shouldn't the maximum number of  guns be ready for use, i.e. loaded and unlocked.  But if guns in homes with small children should probably be locked, doesn't that also put families with small children more at risk?  (And if ex-felons can't own guns, aren't they also at a much greater risk?)
    And shouldn't more citizens not just keep guns at home but carry them?  And if the purpose of carrying guns is to deter criminals, why should the guns carried by lawful citizens be concealed? And if they are not concealed, why can't they be rifles as well as pistols.  And what type of guns should citizens use? How can our society and schools be safe if criminals have large magazine, automatic firing guns and lawful citizens don't? And how can our society be safe if criminals have armor piercing ammunition, and citizens don't? Or pipe bombs, and lawful citizens don't?

    Indeed, the only logical answer to these questions is that our society and schools will only be safe when "law abiding" citizens of all ages are better armed than the criminals.  But query:  how soon will grenades or bazookas be needed to get ahead of this arms race? And then what's the next level?
    And  what happens when a law-abiding citizen armed with assault guns and bombs and other weapons of war turns criminal? Or when a sane citizen becomes mentally ill, or disturbed, or upset, or suffers from low self-esteem, or road rage, or who is de-sensitized by and mimics violent movies and media... and has readily available, unlocked, loaded, assault weapons, or bazookas and grenades...?

Thus perhaps the only fair test is to allow those who prefer the proven method of reducing gun violence by reasonably restricting guns to live together; and allow the gun advocates who want to try their experiment of reducing gun violence by arming all citizens with more and bigger guns and weapons, live -- and die -- together.... and let Darwinism take its natural course....