That's what the author of an opinion piece on NPR today said. I have to agree. If nobody had guns, then nobody would shoot anyone. Well, they might use arrows, but is that really "shooting?"
I don't think the argument is whether we should disarm the world (impractical goal). Lots of people want, naturally, crazy people not to have guns. The best we can do is make it temporarily inconvenient for some crazy people to obtain a weapon. A massive change in federal policy could simply ban gun ownership by anyone; the only legally armed people would be cops and soldiers carrying guns loaned them by the government. Don't look for that big a change between now and 2016. Introduction of a bill like that would cause a big riffle.
The change we are likely to see is some petty chickenshit thing like 10-round clips instead of 30-round clips. Or no guns with bayonet mounts. When was the last time you heard about someone being bayoneted?
Whatever change is being planned by the Obama administration in legality of certain firearms or accessories thereto will have zero effect on the next crazy bastard who decides to invade a school because the government has been kind enough to cluster a few hundred unarmed kids and teachers where they can't easily get away from him.
Assuming that in nearly every school system there are several teachers/staff who would volunteer to do so (not an improbable scenario), a county sheriff can deputize whom he wants. Deputizing volunteers who are inside a schoolhouse while the kids are there would give the deputies the legal right to carry in a gun-free zone (just like the school liaison cop in every school in Rapid City).
Assuming a would-be school shooter pays any attention to cost/benefit issues, one benefit undeniable at most schools is that no one in the building is armed. If he does pay attention, he might choose a different target after learning that several of the people inside the school are armed, but nobody knows which ones. If he doesn't pay attention, and chooses a school with armed staff, the carnage will likely be lower than it otherwise would be.
Any law that attempts to reduce the number of people killed in random group murder attempts by regulating clip capacity or discriminating against guns that "look" like military weapons will have no effect other than cosmetic.
As for a total gun-ban.... Well, it wouldn't be total; it would exempt people on government payrolls using government-loaned guns. Not even Sarah Brady wants to live in that world.