That just proves you're not a pedophile, not that it could not excite one.

Artistically, I think it's a great cover. Sure, it is contentious, prone to disturb, but that it gets labelled as "child porn" or ends up on some worst album covers lists just shows how prejudicial and narrow-minded some people are. They won't get past the fact it involves a nude child, which, in their mind, invariably means it's the work of a filthy pedophile for the sole enjoyment of other pedophiles. But evil is in the eye of the beholder, and what they see is not what the cover really shows but how they choose to interpret it by looking at it from the nastiest angle.

What's to stop some nut job, with a gun from wandering onto a school campus and shooting a bunch of people?

There's a huge paradox here. Talking about school killings, as far as I know, most of them have happened in countries where it is legal and easy to own a gun (USA, Finland, Canada). It doesn't seem to act much as a deterrent, at least not as much as not to be able to get a weapon at all. Besides, following your logic, the right to bear arms should have protected people better, but it didn't because you're not allowed to carry arms at school and, possibly, in some other public places too. So what's your solution here? Everyone should be encouraged to carry arms at all times to protect himself or herself better like in the Old West? Do you think, if that was the case, if everyone was carrying guns, that you would all be protected better and that the number of crimes would magically drop? Or wouldn't the number shoot skyward?

At the time of the release of Bowling for Columbine, there was a pamphlet circulating in the theaters with a theory about this obsession of carrying guns (might be also mentionned in the movie, I don't remember). Basically, what it said, is that it was all based on fear, a legacy of fear that indeed goes back to a time when people had guns to protect themselves against indians, slaves, outlaws.

Your main argument being all along the fear of being killed, that assumption seems correct. It is a rightful fear of course because in the US you have a long history of civil violence, but the problem is that you fail to see the connection between that violence and the right to bear arms. You can only think of that "man, somewhere out there, who might kill" as a reason to have a gun, not as the flaw in your peace of mind drawing its strength from the second amendment.

Not everyone would turn in their weapons, and even if they did, that wouldn't put an end to crimes, innocent people would continue to get murdered; well, all that is obvious. As a nation which has always lived with guns, it would take a very long time and tremendous efforts before you can all learn to live in a society free of weapons and see the benefits of it.

As for the original topic... that's a preposterous and dangerous idea. Between old people who would accidentally shoot someone, shoot the wrong person, or even shoot themselves (be it a suicide or an accident), taking also into account potential criminals who could take advantage of the weapon's harmless look, there's a lot of possibilities that it goes totally wrong. Why not making real guns for children too? Like this they could protect themselves against abusers and molesters of all kind. Guns for everyone!