I allow a certain population of spiders in the house. (non-poisonous) They keep the mosquitoes down. Any other critter, nope. My house, not yours. I also take exception to various critters residing in my outbuildings. Cats are ok, they serve a purpose, woodchucks, on the other hand, are far too destructive, and they don't live long. (if the dogs don't get 'em, I do.) We don't have too many poisonous critters around here, fortunately..... So not really a worry. Raccoons with distemper though, yeah, seen a few of those. I generally just capture, and export them. (by the time they are debilitated enough for me to catch them, they ain't long for this world anyway...... so, take 'em out into the woods, and let them die on their own terms.)
As for folks carrying weapons... The ones with permits are VERY seldom, if ever, the ones you need to worry about. It's the guys that can't legally even possess a firearm that you need to worry about. But, they are generally confined to the high crime areas in larger cities in any event. (the Cities nearest me are pretty small, under 40K population.) Not too much of a worry here. Mostly farmers and such around me, so, yeah, just about everyone has a gun, but, they don't, as a rule, tote them around everywhere they go.
Also, where I live, if you want to carry, you need a permit. That means background checks, and some training. I don't really have a problem with that. I see armed folks rather regularly, and it just isn't a concern. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not a society of gun-happy cowboys, that will shoot you for looking at them the wrong way.
Mass Shootings? Yeah, that's a problem. Trouble is, the politicians don't want to SOLVE the problem, they want to campaign about out, and fear-monger. The left would love to ban a selection of firearms, but, thinking that a 'buyback', or something similar would work, is a pipedream. Massachusetts tried that, and had less than five percent participation. (some folks thought even that number was on the high side.....) A 'forced' collection would never work here. There are literally millions of semi-auto firearms in civilian hands, and long guns are not required to be registered, so, who actually has them? The government sure doesn't know, and if they tried to implement some kind of search for them, in order to confiscate them, it would be instant civil war. The cops would NEVER go for it, and currently, it is not legal for the government to use the military to enforce laws. So, an Australian-style collection simply isn't going to happen.
And then there is the whole problem of: Banning a segment of weapons, will only prompt the mass-shooters to use another weapon. That would likely be something even more deadly than the evil black rifle. (AR-15, and its variants) You think those tiny little .223 slugs cause damage? Just think what a .308 would do... Not to mention that the favorite weapon of mass shooters is generally pistols, or shotguns..... For close-in work, such as a school.... the shotgun is actually more effective....
For the school shootings, the biggest problem, as I see it... is that Gun Free Zone designation. All they are accomplishing with that, is announcing to any potential mass-shooter, that here is a target rich environment, in which very few, if any, will be able to SHOOT BACK. It seems to escape the dems notice that most mass shootings (that aren't gang activity related) happen in gun free zones. There has NEVER been a mass shooting at a police station, or a gun range.... Imagine that. So, get rid of the GFZ designation, so there is a very real possibility that ANY adult on the scene, *might* be armed, and watch the number of school shootings decline dramatically. Will that stop all of them? Nope. I don't think its possible to prevent ALL of them. For instance, the Las Vegas shooting. Steven Paddock apparently planned that out in advance, had a pretty significant arsenal at hand, and was firing down into a large crowd. Sure, the venue was a GFZ, but, even if EVERYONE there had been armed, it wouldn't have mattered. Stevie was well out of range of any pistol, and I don't know anyone that regularly walks around with a sniper rifle. (which is what they would have needed.....) He was able to kill so many not because he was a good shot, but because he simply sprayed bullets into a crowd. Bump-stocks were banned very shortly thereafter...... Of course, anyone with a rubber band can accomplish the same effect..... Just doesn't happen often.
We had a mall shooter at one time as well, I think he managed to kill three, before someone with concealed carry permit took him down.
The church shooter in texas was also taken down by a civilian with a legal weapon. Unfortunately, that was AFTER he shot a bunch of folks in a church.....
The FBI also thinks that firearms are used 1-2 MILLION times a year, to stop, or prevent a crime.....
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And THAT is a major issue. There are simply too many guns here in the US to ever expect them to go away. Besides, when has a ban of anything ever worked? Various drugs have been banned for decades, yet they are still easily available..... Even easier to get than illegal guns...... Of course, banning guns would have the same effect that prohibition did back in the 20's. A new black market would instantly pop up to supply that demand. That particular amendment actually helped CREATE the Mafia here in the US. Ooops.
A lotta states here have what is referred to as 'castle doctrine', or 'stand your ground'. Basically, it means you have the right to defend yourself, using whatever force is necessary. If that means the bad guy gets dead, so be it. He shouldn't have been engaging in whatever behavior that got him killed. He got what he deserved, and is NOT the victim. But, there are some states where that isn't the case...... In California, a buncha years back, a man broke into another man's house, was attempting to steal his television, (back in the days where they had that heavy CRT display) fell down the stairs, broke his leg.. Sued the homeowner, and WON!..... That one was a real head-scratcher for me. How in the world does such a decision make ANY sense at all???? Don't know if that decision was ever overturned, or, if things have changed since then.... but, I have no desire to move to California. Even though the weather is MUCH nicer than it is here.