So unless I agree with you I should butt out? So in your mind a foreigner has more to say about this than a US citizen? LOL. k.
This has nothing to do with any of that. I just want some perspective from other cultures, which I realize you are deadset on avoiding at all costs. I frankly don't give a shit about your opinion as I already know what you are going to say about any hot button political issue before you say it.
You will notice a few things in common with a high percentage of these school shootings. One of them is that 90%+ of them are in "gun free zones". Essentially this is just an advertisement that there will be no armed resistance on the premises. In short, the schools with armed teachers aren't the problem.
Individuals licensed to carry are allowed to carry inside gun free zones.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_AThere we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans.
An object designed specifically as a lethal weapon. We're not talking about cars or toasters. We're talking about something manufactured with the express purpose of acting as a weapon. Of course the humans pull the trigger. Nobody is debating that except for those intent on beating up a straw man.
Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns disappear, the intent to harm still exists. This means they will simply change the tool used, and there are plenty of available tools for mass murder at a rate equal to or surpassing firearms.
OK like what? Grenades? Dynamite? What did you have in mind that is easier to get than a gun?
Do you suggest they should start controlling gasoline like firearms? What about large vehicles? What about common products that can be turned into explosives? The problem is the fact that these people have intent to harm, not the tool they use to do harm with. I can beat your skull in with a hammer or I can build a house with it. No matter which I do it does not transmute a moral standing to the hammer.
Nobody uses a gun to build a house; thats the difference. Just like nobody uses a gun to drive to work. Nobody uses explosives as a cleaning agent. You are just being facetious.
As I said previously the focus on the firearms is just a convenient way for weak minded people to avoid looking at the issues that might cause these individuals to have such intent to begin with, which is of course a much more complicated issue. It is a far easier task to simply point at guns, throw your hands up, and declare the inanimate objects responsible. You play the roll of the savior when you are really the ostrich hiding from the problem looking for a convenient way to absolve yourself from any responsibility in the matter logically or otherwise. This is the harsh reality you hide from.
Ok other than "more guns," what is your solution? There's already more than 1 gun for every person in America, so don't say "more guns."
Just answer this... why is it owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident? Clearly cars cause auto deaths, therefore they should be banned without any examination of the benefits of car ownership right? RIGHT!
Again, more facetious foolishness. Cars aren't manufactured to be weapons. That's the difference.
You evaded my question. Answer it.
Just answer this: why do you think Americans have so many gun-related deaths each year as compared to most other countries?
So you are psychic now you know what I am going to say before I say it? Who the fuck do you think you are, Miss Cleo? The fact that you don't give a shit about my opinion is kind of the problem, because this subject directly effects me, but not "other cultures". SO DIVERSE!
I don't think you have any idea how "gun free zones" operate. The fact that you made such a generalized blanket statement is not a good sign. Firearms have more purposes than only being used to kill. They can defend your life and the lives of your family, they can feed you, they can help you defend your other civil rights. Just because all you can see is an instrument of death is YOUR issue. As with nearly every gun control argument, yours comes from an emotion based argument of fear of an inanimate object.
The fact that humans will find other ways to kill is not at all a straw man, it is a direct critique of your gun control argument. The fact is that removing guns will not remove the ability to kill, even quickly and in large numbers. It is not hard to find ways to kill people if that is really your intent. Gasoline and fires for example, large vehicles used against crowds, improvised explosive devices, we have seen all of these things used already for mass murder. The problem is what is driving them to mass murder, not the firearms they use.
Firearms do not even necessarily need to be fired to be useful. The fact that they are widely owned is a criminal deterrent and a deterrent to state level actors which might want to invade for one example. Simply brandishing a weapon at some one who may be in the process of attacking you is often enough to end the conflict. Your position that guns are only for killing is myopic. Guns are tools and tools are for whatever the human wielding them intends to use them for.
My solution is for one to stop drugging up all these kids. A good 90% or so of these shootings they were on some kind of MAOI or SSRI drug which are proven to create suicidal and homicidal ideation in some people. Then I would suggest people stop letting television, the internet, and the state raise their children. There are a lot of other solutions that should be addressed at the core of the issue before we start steamrolling very hard fought civil rights.
I didn't evade anything, I simply took your loaded question and responded to it with an equally loaded question. That would be like saying since more people die in Australia because of kangaroo attacks than do in the US, it is proof that the USA has superior kangaroo management policies. If you own a car your chances of dying in a car accident increase. If you own a pool your chances of drowning increase. The fact that the USA has more gun crime is an artifact of gun availability just like Russia has more vodka related crime. You are only looking at the little subsection you want to use to argue your point then ignoring the totality of the situation where there are other benefits as a whole.