1) Again, I am more than comfortable with pushing holistic crime reduction measures. My only argument is that gun control should be part of that, and until we reach a point where we are able to control crime, we shouldn't allow ownership of certain types of weapons. 

As for the argument regarding militias, I simply don't think that this could ever go well. If we are to task the citizenry with violence in certain circumstances, then we are leaving it up to them when violence is necessary. I feel that the greater damage of fascism is something like January 6, where an anti-government group is able to exploit that expectation of violence to create terrorism. It seems much less likely that guns will somehow be used to protect freedom and process and much more likely that guns will be used to stifle freedom and process. 

2) I think both of these ideas (mental illness and substance abuse) come back to the idea of demonstrating non-recidivism. If someone is committed, they shouldn't get to walk out of the institution and purchase a gun. They should have to demonstrate for a period of time that they are mentally stable and are managing their mental state to a reasonable extent. The same should be true of substance abusers. They should need to demonstrate for some time that they are no longer dependent on substances before they are restored their firearm owning privileges. You say "If a substance abuser sought treatment and is continuing their treatment, then likewise they shouldn't be restricted", but this seems to imply that they need to demonstrate continuing treatment for a reasonable period of time before full restoration of rights, so I'm not entirely sure what the argument is here unless I'm misunderstanding you. 

As for your point regarding firearms for protection, there is generally little evidence that firearms are particularly good at this. Often, firearms increase the likelihood of being victimized by a crime, not reduce it. As such, I don't feel that it is accurate to state that these laws would make people more vulnerable. 

3) Out of curiosity, in a post-prison society, what should be done with murderers? 

Too many mentally ill and untrustworthy people in this country for me to vote in favor of giving up any of my rights. The fact the discussion of dissolution of the police occurred by government officials is why I will never agree with giving up the second amendment in this country. We can't even agree to pass laws that beef up security in schools while we debate measures to filter out people from getting these tools. I'm not religious so I wont pray for the victims but I have shed tears for so many victims in this country over my 28 years of life but I refuse to become the next victim.

Too many ill and untrustworthy people seems like a good reason to have less guns around to me. 

As for "beefing up security in schools", what exactly are you proposing?

Mentally ill and untrustworthy people still have some kind of common sense.

Why would they even bother try starting a mass shooting if they become the giant target by everyone else who is bearing arms around them as soon as they fire the first shot ?

Armed guards didn't help Texas.

Why open with this meaningless statement. If the 2nd amendment gets repealed and a mass shooting still occurs eventually, Guess repealing the 2nd ammendment didn't help?

The school district had its own police department, a security guard. And there were police outside who were waiting for close to an hour while the shooting was going on.

What you mean by school district. The school itself wasn't a gun free zone?

Also.. . So shooting is going on and people who were hired to protect were eating popcorn watching the shooting or wateva. This is actually an argument supporting the second amendment. So teachers in the area should have been armed also.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/26/ted-cruz/research-armed-campus-police-do-not-prevent-school/

"A 2021 study conducted by researchers from University at Albany and RAND examined data from U.S. schools between 2014 to 2018 to evaluate the impact of school resource officers. It found that school resource officers "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents."

In addition, that study found that school resource officers appear to protect students from "a non-trivial number of physical attacks and fights within schools," which could have long-term academic and psychological benefits for students. But schools with resource officers also report more suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and student arrests — and those harsher disciplinary punishments disproportionately fall on Black students, male students and students with disabilities.

Further, when researchers controlled for location and school characteristic factors, "the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater (emphasis added) in schools with an armed guard present.""

Wtf is "rates of deaths". The question is if more arms guards present in an area increases mass shootings in an area. What the poster seem to imply.

The media pushes out this fantasy of a person with a gun stopping a shooting.

There are a lot of issues with that.

Those people often inadvertently cause a shooting, because they are an access point to get a gun, often times through carelessness. 

A lot of people are just flat out not trained for a gun. Some people should never get trained to use a gun.

Even when people are somewhat trained, they are still at a disadvantage. People who shoot up a school tend to have some kind of mental issue, and oftentimes are prepared to not make it out alive, and they're a lot more willing to take someone else's life than a sane person is willing to take theirs.

A lot of these people are genuinely suicidal, and are just trying to take people out with them. So threats of armed guards could actually be encouraging for them.

Just because there are occasionally some stories where a good guy with a gun does stop the bad guy, doesn't mean that would be the norm. It's not something that should be expected.

The mainstream media in America seems very anti second ammendment. If mainstream you are referring to.

Also the argument is if areas with high gun bearing population deters or stops mass shootings.

Because they're mentally ill. Some illnesses make people act in ways incomprehensible to other people. This school shooter this thread is about is a prime example. There is no logic, reason or anything that makes sense behind these actions.

No it isn't an argument for the second amendment. If people who are paid and trained are unable to make a difference, why would teachers be able to do anything.  

The school itself had its own police department. 

Officers are allowed to carry guns in "gun free zones", that been a thing for decades. It's literally an exception in the law that codifies gun free zones.  

By media, I am talking about the 5 million crime shows, action movies that routinely show such feats where everything turns out okay.  

The United States is the only major country in the world that deals with these issues, and it's also the one with the most guns. The idea that the solution is more guns should be obviously backwards to anyone that can recognize those two facts. 

Too many mentally ill and untrustworthy people in this country for me to vote in favor of giving up any of my rights. The fact the discussion of dissolution of the police occurred by government officials is why I will never agree with giving up the second amendment in this country. We can't even agree to pass laws that beef up security in schools while we debate measures to filter out people from getting these tools. I'm not religious so I wont pray for the victims but I have shed tears for so many victims in this country over my 28 years of life but I refuse to become the next victim.