If one has a firearm and starts shooting up a school, does he have a better chance of causing more damage if the victims are armed or not? A gunman can only do so much if he is popped right away by other people who are armed. Criminals will still obtain guns either way and I would feel much more comfortable if I knew teachers could defend themselves and their students.
Yes, more firearms would lead to fewer school shootings, because people would have a way to defend themselves. People would be less likely to take a gun to school knowing that the teachers and employees would likely shoot back at them. A person would know they could not inflict as much damage, because there would not be helpless victims.
Having more firearms would lead to less school shootings. With everyone having guns, people who would want to harm people by shooting up a school would have to think twice because the people in it are not unarmed. As long as the laws are strict, it would be safer for everyone.
Even though I am not completely against this whole gun control thing, the more I think of it, the more I think that if certain people who are not exactly mentally stable lose access to their guns, this may very well cause less school shootings. You can't shoot a gun if you don't have one.
If the shooter knows that anyone in the school has a weapon that could cause serious harm, they would go after said person first. And with the chaos that would be caused by the shooting, there's a possibility not many people will rush to the staff member's aid. The shooter could either carry the extra weapon on them or hide it. Staff members most likely be looking for the shooter and not the shooters gun, because they will think that all weapons are on the shooter.
That's like asking if more cars would lessen the amount of drunk driving, we don't blame cars for drunk drivers, so why blame guns for violent people? We can put as many firearms out there as we want, will that reduce the amount of violent people? No. So this question is utterly stupid.
What could possibly be gained from having more firearms inside of schools that would contribute to less school shootings? There's this idea that John McClane can burst in and save the day in the event of an active shooter, but what would really happen is that it would turn into the end of The Wild Bunch - there shouldn't be any guns in schools period.
More firearms would not lead to less school shootings. The only way that we are going to stop school shootings is by preparing our schools with items that would prevent this from happening. This would include metal detectors, more security at our schools, and even allowing school staff to carry guns for protection.
Having access to more fire arms would not lead to less school shootings. It would give people more access to more guns and so it would not make sense for school shootings to be less frequent. At the same time I don't think less guns would lessen school violence either because the student would either find a way to get the gun or use a different means.
Gunmen choose schools because they are vulnerable and because they strike to the heart of a community: its offspring. If the school were fortified, or if there were more armed people within, the appeal of the target would be significantly diminished.
However, this condition may be achieved without a massive influx of firearms into the general populace. In fact, it is accomplished simply by fortifying schools and placing more armed guards in schools, and actually would be even more readily accomplished if, in addition to these measures, the populace were disarmed as well.
At this point you will argue that there will always be a gun available somewhere. Perhaps, but that's what the fortifications and guards are intended to combat.
Unfortunately, in failing to control for this argument in your question, it has become self defeating. I am actually pro-gun-ownership, I just wanted to clear the point.