"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. Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns. Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument? Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.
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." 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.
If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here. 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. I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve. 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.