"25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving." They took the risk of going near cars."

Not necessarily in some cases they were far from the roadway.

Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns.

They are not really more regulated than guns, you can kill people with a car and get a license after. We allow felons to own cars don't we? In fact anyone can own one, even a child or felon or mental patient. There is no age requirement to own or buy a car, just to legally operate it on the roads. In some states 14 and 15 year olds can drive under some circumstances. No one needs a car but of course "need" is totally irrelevant, the only thing people need is food water warmth and air. So what is the relevance of your perception of need? People don't need to be able to defend themselves? Who is going to do it?

Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument?

I am quite sure I was not suggesting that, so how did you come to such a faulty question?

Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.

Of course it is am emotional argument to call guns killing machines, they aren't, not by any metric. Something used for killing only once every 10,000 years is not much of a killing machine. They are protecting machines, guns are used for protection millions of times annually.

If I were to use the fact that I think killing animals for recreation is obscene as an argument it would have the same objective value as "I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment."

You are telling me that I don't need something that I do need, that is obscene. Who put you in charge of what I need?

Since I'm not using my vegetarianism to refute objective arguments, I would appreciate if you do the same with yours. You don't need guns for entertainment is an objective statement.

I use guns for entertainment, thus for entertainment I need guns. That's a tautology.

If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here.

Mostly I come here to talk about guns, I find that entertaining as well, I need guns to talk about. Where did the concept of "need" enter this conversation?

Lastly, yeah, what if teachers were armed? I'm sure there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the original shooter or shooters are in all the gunfire.

LOL I call that the chicken little argument, every single time that carry rights are expanded in America chicken little comes out and makes the claim that there will be confused gunfire with CCW holders shooting each other and being shot by police. This claim has been made every time a state adopted concealed carry, from 5 states to all 50. So at least 45 times, plus every time a state university system legalizes guns the same claim is made, about 10 times. Here in reality that simply has not and does not happen, it's a paranoid fantasy. Teachers can already carry in one third of states, tell me about all the times that one of them was mistaken for a school shooter and shot, there are not any are there?
Because it is a silly idea not based in reality.

I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve.

These are the people you trust with your children, you don't trust them with a gun?
Your argument is trying to gin up a hypothetical fear, but we have reality here, teachers carrying guns at school is not a hypothetical, in the third of states that allow teachers to carry how many times has that happened?
If a teacher decided to bring a gun to school and shoot up the place, tell me why it would not be better for there to be another armed teacher at the school.

I'm sure the cost of arming and training teachers like a militia won't cost you any in taxes... Point to an example, I don't accept hypothetical answers to something that isn't hypothetical.

LOL and yet all of your fearmongering is based in hypotheticals that have not happened in practice. Now a fearmongering about the expense. Laughable, first it is based on a totally false scenario, "arming teachers" does not mean buying them guns, it means letting them carry guns they already own, so that is stupid right?
But lets look at your hypothetical, if we bought every teacher in America a brand new high end pistol at retail it would cost about 1.5 billion dollars out of a 4.1 trillion dollar budget, or basically nothing.

Here is the reality