Don't Huff and Puff, just Huff... the VT tragedy and the ensuing debate

This is probably not the best time to debate -- as one Reddit poster said, "Can we at least let the corpses get cold first?". I'm sorry; I don't trust my memory, so I'm just going to take my brain dump while I still remember what I want to say. My condolences to the friends and families of the 33 involved. What happened was terrible...

So, this morning I was just reading a terribly cute story my niece wrote about a metaphorical bout between the Sun and the Wind. Well, I'm not going to post her story, but the moral of it was that you can't get what you want from people by just "huffing and puffing" at them all of the time. Overall, very impressive for a six year-old.

Well, tonight I finally sat down and read about the VT shooting. I read the accounts of those who "knew" the shooter. I read the accounts of those who witnessed the events, and the heroic stance made by a particular professor. I read about the fears (and hopefully, isolated instances) of racial backlash. And, of course, I tried to soak in both sides of the gun debate.

Now, I honestly don't know all the points of each side, but what I gather from each side:

1. Pro-carry-conceal (I think that's the group): Presence of other armed and sane individuals can contain an incident. This often does not require firing a gun. Also, countries that do not restrict gun ownership have fewer incidents. Gun laws don't do anything: the shooter wasn't a criminal until Monday
   
2. Anti-carry-conceal (I don't know the exact fancier name): friendly fire, confusion, and other reasons for escalation. More isolated/singleton shootings, e.g., during a drunk bar-fight, may occur. The US may turn Wild Wild West (it has before, right?). If things aren't that extreme, at least we may all live in fear (or with just a hint of fear) of offending others, as many are now armed.
   

Well, I don't think people need guns to subdue or contain incidents. There must be something less extreme. After all, even with a gun, containment does not require firing it.

• Tazers? Those take skill to aim (I'm not sure if it works through thick clothing)
• Pepper spray? Range is probably too short
• Guns -- with infinite clips. No.
  
• Guns -- with one-bullet clips. Like an old musket. Actual-shooters will be less effective (reload time) and accidental-shooters can only make one mistake. Perhaps such one-balled gunmen will only intimidate.
  

Anyway, I don't get why debates always consider the extremes. I find that most solutions are a compromise.