As a thought experiment, do you think there would be so many casualities if this island was located in Texas, USA where socialists/labor party is also not very popular?
Very possibly. Even in Texas, a bunch of kids on a youth camping retreat probably aren't heavily armed and ready to do battle. The element of surprise helps, too.
> The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage.
That's some crazy logic. A "good guy" doesn't mean a person capable of making the right decisions in front of a bad guy. Would they be able to deescalate? Would they shoot an innocent bystander? Would they shoot another good guy mistaking them for a bad guy?
The correct path forward is to educate and reduce the amount of guns, not give more out on the off chance a good guy happens to be there where something bad happens, while simultaneously increasing the risk a heated exchange/rage fit/whatever escalates to a gunfight.
in todays society, i look as guns not as a good, but as a necessary evil, needed to protect the weak from the strong, and level the playing field in a physical situation ( not ideal, but can't be wished away either)
For this reason, the gun ownership needs to increase among the traditionally weaker classes ( women, minorities ) who currently are at threat.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shoo...
(it is probably a safe assumption that a Baptist church in a small town in Texas had at least a couple armed congregants)