Topic: Colorado school Shooting! (case sealed) (Read 899 times)

https://mises.org/wire/confronting-myths-about-arming-teachers

^^^ That's a generalization. There are some really good schools, and the people who really care for their kids, investigate their options, and then send their kids there. Charter and parochial schools are a couple of examples of generally good schools.

The education system is trash anyways and I'm not even talking about the violence.  Wasted so much time in school learning useless things and doing pointless projects which did nothing for my life.  I would of been better off dropping out at 10 years old and doing real world things.

Teachers armed in schools is really happening.

Usually there are a few students who are respected, and are very responsible. After testing, some of these should go armed to back up the teachers. If such is done, these students will become even more respected and responsible.

Both, armed teachers and armed students, will make the schools bastions of strength against terrorism.

It's the medical druggie shooters who do most of the school terrorizing... blacks or any other race.

1st world democratic countries, ignore the Banana Republics, unless of course the bar is so low you want to be on par with them...

Exactly. The point is every school will have a handful of these people seconds away to react. It doesn't need to be everyone. Watch a couple would-be school shooters get ended before taking any lives a few times and suddenly it will get a lot less glamorous and a lot more scary in the minds of these deranged individuals. Suddenly it stops happening as much, and when it does less people are hurt because they don't get to go on an unchecked rampage for 30 minutes to an hour.

There's a mindset that comes first, before anyone should do concealed carry. Otherwise he becomes a target for punks to take the gun away.

The right solution is to eliminate "gun free zones," and make them "zones where you don't know who is carrying but you damn sure know they are there and they are going to shoot you dead."

Like "Air Marshalls." They exist, but good luck identifying them.


Behavior suppressing pills are obviously behind sudden breakout into psychotic behavior that to a fair degree results in mass shootings. This is not getting the attention it deserves.

Is there really no special interest money in politics around the world? I feel like that can't be true (Maybe just cause I'm in America, I feel that what happens here regarding politics is normal)

The gun show loophole and other gun control ideas are an interesing topic, though I don't think people notice that most of these mass shootings that occurred in the US wouldn't have been stopped by any gun control solutions proposed. Check the source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ff8dbe61b07)

We have an issue of enforcement in this country, not an issue of the laws we have.

Actually, even by rate per 1 million: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people america isn't close to the top. Sure a lot of shit happens in america and some measures are needed but I can assure you it's not because of police LOL, I know you think they are bad because you don't know how to look at statistics but it's actually the black population that does most of the killing in America.

^^^ Actually, America is the place where illegal and disgusting things seem to be tolerated because the government leaders have hired an abnormally high number of police. Guns among the populous should be increased in places that have high numbers of police.

America is the country where illegal and disgusting things are tolerated. Because if they do really care about this incident, they will banned guns for individuals to have it for personal possession a long time ago. The accessibility of guns should be taken seriously by their government and it should only be allowed on places that has low number of policemen.

Literally no one said everyone should be carrying guns. Also there is either a right to bear arms or not, if there is a government entity picking and choosing who can and can not own firearms then it is not a right any more is it? It becomes a privilege granted not a right implicit and exercised. There are a TON of sources here. Sorry not really buying your excuse that gun control laws do not have a counterproductive effect. California is clearly the most strict laws with some of the worst results. Texas though largely pro-gun has some very left leaning pro-gun control areas within its city centers. An interesting thing to note is a lot of these places are filled with the refugees from Commifornia. They move to other states and proceed to vote in all the same failed polices they just ran from.

Another excellent example of this is Chicago, where as the state regulations are not super restrictive, but within Cook County the restrictions are exceptionally strict even on a nation wide level yet it has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation. In effect it is not a genuine examination of the regulations to only look at state level statues because localities and counties find ways to achieve this same counterproductive effect regardless. The same can be said for New York City and I am sure many other locations. Again regarding training, we are talking about certifying qualified individuals to assert their 2nd amendment rights at work or school (in the cases of higher ed). This does not necessitate some kind of entitlement to extra pay or occupational benefits, this is simply a matter of enabling trained and qualified citizens the ability to do so if they choose. All the other horse shit about special advantages and unpaid training is just a red herring attaching other frivolous stipulations unnecessarily.

Can a commercial plane crash? yes but unlikely

Can a public place be shot up by someone? yes but unlikely


The percentage of this happening to you is so low sometimes it not even worth worrying about.


I would not want guns in the hands of normal teachers, that is a recipe for disaster.  I've had some seriously deranged teachers before.

My point about statistics was just that living in fear of dogs is the same as living in fear of school shootings. If we were discussing the danger of living in the city, I would have chosen my phrasing more carefully.

I'm in a gun unfriendly area now, but I grew up out in the sticks where every kid went through hunters safety as a manner of coming of age tradition. I do think that the entire debate is moot, at least from the direction we are approaching it now. I think there are a few incorrect assumptions with thinking that everyone carrying guns is a good idea, but thats not super relevant. Funny enough, I was going to look up the statistics on the locations of school shootings just to have something to reference with my next thought, but I really couldn't find any that were reliable. Every list that I found included too many or too few details to actually be useful. I believe that school shooting locations have very little to do with state gun laws. Given that the data was inconclusive, it appears that both California and Texas are towards the top of the list for number of school shootings. Funny though, both states have massive populations and plenty of congested hell cities (cough Chicago, Baltimore, Atlanta, New York). I'm taking a blind guess at this, but I suppose Texas and California each probably account for ~10% of non snow related car crashes too, guess that makes them unsafe to drive in.

I am ABSOLUTELY in agreement that there is a correlation between over medication of children and incidents. Besides the obvious effect that antidepressants and such have strong side effects on adolescents, its another important indicator. Medication is not a treatment for mental health problems. There are very few cases where someone is just born with a chemical imbalance, and a pill just fixes that. Tossing someone a pill doesn't fix the problem, you need to get to the root of the problem or the pill doesn't do anything. I see the rate of medication as a sign that some parents are shirking the well being of their kids and ignoring critical warning signs that can evolve into mental health problems. I'm not saying that sad kids are the cause of all of our problems, we made it through the grunge era, but it definitely lends credence to my thoughts on dealing with mental health before anything else.

*edit* sorry missed your point about training. A handful of companies have tried the, "we aren't making anyone do anything, they are doing it of their own free will" defense, and it never seems to work out. Employees that don't want to volunteer are pressured into doing so because they become less job competitive. A guy who volunteers to work an extra 10 hours without being paid will have an advantage over the guy who doesn't volunteer, so when budget cuts come along, guess who's staying? As a result, the guy who doesn't want to volunteer will end up doing so. There are laws for this reason to keep employers from manipulating their employees into nonpaid overtime. Its been a major problem in transportation and medical fields.

I never said anything about not getting training, the point was the state wouldn't make carrying the gun (or the training required to do so) mandatory, therefore it would not fall under unpaid work. I know you live in an area with pretty strict gun controls, but visit Arizona or Texas some time. Tons of people walk around all day with guns on their hips and they don't jump up and shoot people on their own. If the threats of a school shooting are statistically insignificant then this entire debate is moot. High levels of carrying is a deterrent and in itself a form of making school shootings harder, which would most certainly be more likely to prevent it in the first place if they know they will not be able to rack up a body count before they join the pile. All kinds of studies have already shown video games and movies don't result directly in more violence. You know what studies have shown results in violence though? All the meds that the vast majority of shooters have been pumped full of. It is very good of you to decide for others they should feel safe because "statistics". Next time some one tries to jump me when I am in Chicago I will show them the stats maybe they will go away.

I have not heard of that. One solution would be to give teachers a safe harbor if they have certain credentials and take certain precautions, so to prevent them from getting sued frivolously.

Otherwise, if additional training is unavoidable, schools will need to find the funding. I don't know where this money will come from, and the answer is probably different from district to district -- some can probably come from the federal government (and state governments) via grants. At the end of the day, difficult choices will need to be made. In most cases, either taxes will need to be raised, or other programs will need to have their budgets cut to pay for this training.

Well, it is speculation on my end, I cannot fathom not requiring the training I mentioned before, but your guess is as good as mine at this point.

Armed amateurs are more dangerous than mass murders. The number of accidents prone to happen from millions of armed amateurs is surely higher. As much as its played up as an imminent threat to the existence of humanity, the chances of being involved in a school shooting are still statistically insignificant.  The numbers of them occurring is certainly increasing, but as I mentioned before, I think there are far better methods available to reduce them than removing guns. I support people's rights to own guns, but there is a time and place for everything. I don't think that turning the country back into a Clint Eastwood western movie is the solution. Going to the grocery store should not become an arms race.

As I said before when I was defending gun ownership, guns are just a tool of convenience. If school shootings became difficult due to sentry turrets or whatever else, people would just move onto the next most convenient method. You don't stop shooters by shooting them first, you stop them from deciding to become shooters in the first place. I'm not the sort to point fingers and blame violent movies or video games or anything else, but just something to think about. Most countries in the world normalize sex rather than violence. A movie will receive a higher rating due to violent content rather than sexual content, whereas in the US, its the reverse. I'm not claiming thats the cause of anything, just a portion of my basis for being against normalizing violence. You shouldn't need a gun to feel safe in public, you should feel safe knowing that unreasonable violence is a statistical outlier, and the majority of people will be able to receive treatment for whatever would drive them to commit violence in the first place.

Actually most states have qualified immunity for police, so as long as they were not completely negligent it is usually irrelevant, but this is another topic. There would be no mandate to get this training, so your logic about unpaid work training is flawed. The school is not mandating anyone do this necessarily but permitting it, so there is a huge difference. Again you avoided my question. Which do you think is better, a well meaning armed teacher there instantly, or police there in 5 to 20 minutes? Which is more dangerous, an unchecked mass murderer, or an armed amateur?

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that the option was viable, formal military and police training would still probably require a few more pieces to be legal. In many jurisdictions, police officers are required to have liability insurance policies to cover them from being sued into oblivion when they make a mistake that their department wont cover. I think it would probably be a hard sell to get a policy without extensive ongoing training. I can't imagine teachers wouldn't be required to have one if they were allowed to carry guns.


You can't legally have an employee undergo unpaid work related training, so the school board would need to cover that or be at risk of lawsuits. I don't know for certain that the state would have to pay for everything, but based on employment laws, I can say with relative certainty that teachers wouldn't be allowed to provide for themselves.

You can't just put a responsible gun owner in charge of protecting lives, they need to be thoroughly trained so they don't put those lives they are responsible for at greater risk. Google says police academy training costs around $5k and takes 840 hours, followed by field training with a senior officer, and certification exams before officers are allowed to uphold public safety. Again, realistically assuming that the idea is plausible, teachers would need to go through similar if not greater levels of training as police officers as dealing with minors is not a simple situation. I'm sure there are specialization certifications on how to deal with violence around minors. Lets also not forget the routine psychological analysis, not sure what that costs, but I'm sure its cheap. There is a reason that someone you are trusting your life to is required to jump through so many hoops, otherwise they pose a risk to your safety. Even if you think the regulations are stupid, thats not the point of what we are discussing. I could be pro teachers with guns, but that wouldn't change anything I've said so far so its just my interpretation of the legal impossibilities that stand in the way.


I'm not accusing anyone of bringing it up, but I just wanted to mention it in case the conversation would have otherwise gone in this direction. Vigilantism is the worst possible solution. I would bet my life that under absolutely no circumstances would teachers simply be allowed to bring guns to school at their own discretion. It is such a huge legal liability that we are better off talking about nearly anything else.

I am sure some number of teachers already have the requisite training to be able to safely carry a gun in a school, and there are probably more teachers who are generally interested in this training but have not gotten around to obtaining said skills. [/quote]

Also, every teacher doesn't need to have a gun, teachers only need to have the option to carry a gun in the school. The goal is not necessarily for the teacher to win a gunfight with an attempted mass shooter, the goal is to deter the mass shooter from going to the school in the first place.

Actually this same question I have in mind since US is one of the most strict country in the world regarding rules and laws so what we have here is a total destructive news

How can these youngsters can easily accumulate high powered guns and ammunition in this country?
Is this really happening?teachers go armed?so it’s not impossible for students to have also? Lol

Again, you are automatically assuming the state will have to pay for it. Teachers are not hobos, the ones who want to do this training certainly would have it be within their means. This is not a requirement, so trying to pretend like the state should be on the hook for everything automatically makes no sense. How about we start with allowing those that choose to, to do so? Just like any other gun owner, you are liable for every action you take with a firearm, regardless of how much or little training you have had.

What States Allow Teachers To Be Armed? It's A Controversial Proposal.


And Arizona has allowed concealed carry all over the State without a license since July of 2010.

It doesn't matter if the benefit is worth it, there just wont be funding for it. If we can't get kids dry erase markers, you think a comptroller is going to allocated part of the budget to pay for guns? The federal government cares even less about public schools than the state, even if it wasn't a political hurdle, it would still be a financial one. Teachers don't get paid all that much, you would have to offer them significant compensation for their additional overtime work as well. Lets not forget the mandatory psychological screenings, and stricter standards for background checks. Police officers also own firearms outside of work, but they aren't allowed to bring their own from home. All of their maintenance, ammo, shots fired etc are accounted for. I don't imagine the laws would give teachers fewer restrictions on firearm use than police officers.

There are a lot of real considerations before just getting straight to the ideological, good guy with a gun beats bad guy with a gun. How many teachers are going to open themselves up to the liability? Good teacher with a gun misses and shoots a student for example, are they guilty of manslaughter because they haven't undergone years of psychological training to prevent them from misfiring when in the heat of the moment? Just being good at a firing range isn't the same as having someone shooting back at you.  As far as I know, most middle/high schools already have an on duty police officer to deal with sexual misconduct, drugs, fights, etc. It would be easier to keep them trained to the same standard as beat cops, so you don't have the same thing that happened in Lakeland.

Even assuming arming teachers was a good idea, the policy would be too controversial to enact. You aren't going to get that kind of reform without it being an overwhelming majority vote. I don't imagine having 50% of students removed from school by their parents, and non stop teachers strikes would be that great for school systems.

What about the fact that there are already a lot of police and military already trained working in schools as teachers? It might take a lot of training, so what? Is the benefit of protecting children not worth it? Who says the state pays for it? You know damned well you cant even get a concealed carry permit with a 30 minute course in most states let alone a permit to be armed on school grounds, this is total hyperbole. You know teachers already have access to firearms outside of school right? If they wanted to snap and shoot the place up nothing is stopping them currently. The most important question of all though you need to ask yourself is, which do you think is safer, an armed teacher doing their best with training on the scene the instant violence breaks out, or police five to twenty minutes away? A lot of lives can be taken in five to twenty minutes (average police response time).

Also someone who wants to carry out a mass shooting will certainly don't care where and how he gets his firearms, even if all firearms were illegal in that country he would still be able to buy them illegally, it's also quite easy when you don't give a shit about anything.

^^^ Of course, once all the shooters are there, they will find that all the other shooters with guns are there. So, it won't be a gun-free zone any longer.

Search for it. There have been for a long time, a number of schools in the USA where the teachers go armed. And they do it by State orders.

Brilliant! You are correct.

May I follow your logic to the clear and evident conclusion?

All we need to do is shut down all gun free zones except ONE, and widely publicize it. All the wanna be mass shooters will then head there to wreak their havoc. They will find what appears to be elementary schools and a clearly target rich environment.

Unknown to them would be the thousands of armed and ready folks just waiting for them.

I am not a fan of the idea of arming teachers. First, teachers would be required to go through at least similar levels of training as police in order to make that viable. The whole, give a vigilante good guy a gun and a 30 minute seminar on how to operate the safety and you are good to go is simply not the case. It might be some people's wet dream to be able to shoot a home invader, but for people who aren't deranged, there is a lot psychologically that goes into actually making the decision to shoot someone, even in a life or death situation. If you put someone who isn't extensively trained into a situation where they are in possession of a weapon and afraid for their life, you end up with bad results. No matter how heroic someone is, it takes a lot of training to be able to go against your body's fight or flight response to behave calmly and not make mistakes. Lets say that somehow every school has a teacher that has been in a combat position in the military or something, who is going to fund them? From my experience, teachers are constantly fighting the government for budget, because they are paying for chalk/whiteboard markers out of pocket. I can't see there being the budget for guns, ammo, training, extra wages for time spent training, hazard pay?

While its possible, for the sake of staying on a single point, I'm not going to entertain the thought that the teachers themselves could snap during a bad day, overreact, and shoot an aggressive student that challenges their authority. I bet no one here has ever had an experience with an authoritarian, power tripping teacher. Just something else to think about.

Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

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.

This is a well-reasoned approach and I agree with it. BTW I'm not a "ban all guns" kind of person. I think there's a middle ground that needs to be found, and increasing mental health funding and support should be a part of it. However, murder is still a crime, regardless of the reasons that made somebody snap.


This is an awful approach.

^^^ In general, guns should not be banned. Guns were the best thing that happened to us. Why? Because the meekest, weakest of us has protection from the meanest bully, via the gun. Without the gun, there is no protection except possibly in numbers. And in numbers there is a lessening of personal freedom.

Besides, guns can't be banned except by destroying the whole country. Guns are property. They are private property. Private property is what the country is built on. Private property is the foundation of freedom. Banning guns is the same as taking freedom away.

As for school protection from terrorists, schools are enough of a prison for kids as it is. Strip searching them all as they enter for the day isn't the way to take care of this problem. And if you don't strip search them, they'll be able to get guns in one way or another.

Better to train and arm them all until there is no further need.

The shooting was a sad incident but once again it has raised the controversial question whether guns should be banned or not, or should teachers be allowed to posses arms for the safety of their students. I think the decision should be taken by American citizens only, cause at the end of the day they’re the ones who’re going to live there. @BADecker it’s not a viable option to have armed students and parents walking in the premises, instead why not install strict security check so no one except guards are allowed to take guns inside the premises. This will ensure that terrorists are not able to get fire arms inside, and will deter them from trying such attacks.

I dont really think that is the case. How many shootings end up with the shooter killed by the police or themselves at the end of it? I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine a lot of people that plan attacks, don't intend on escaping alive. You don't see the same patterns as with armed burglary where the attacker gets in, does what they came to do, and quickly leaves before police arrive. People go in and stay until they are surrounded by police.

I also don't believe that attacks are more frequently perpetrated on gun free zones because attackers are concerned for their own safety. Its just a guaranteed way to get on the news. If you are a suicidal psychopath, being on national news for a final hurrah might be appealing. The cycle will continue until we stop giving these people the attention they crave. Of course that won't happen though.

On both sides, I think its sick that we are propping these types of events up with political motives before anything else. People don't honestly care about the victims anymore, its just a way to support a political argument.



Destigmatizing mental health problems making treatment more accessible for people that are starting to go down a bad path. Changing the way we label people forever due to a bad week they might be having. Making available other options rather than just putting someone on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. Allowing them an outlet to talk to someone so they never feel so isolated that they can start to rationalize splitting from human norms.

Good people only commit gun violence by accident, we can train safety measures to prevent that. Good people that succumb to mental illness because the cost or other factors listed above become more likely to commit intentional gun violence. People who want to be criminals are going to be criminals, no amount of laws or anything else is going to stop them. Mass gun violence isn't committed by criminals, as there isn't anything to gain from it. Crime is like gambling, you weigh the odds of punishment versus what you gain out of it. If you can make millions of dollars and you have a 50/50 chance of getting away with it, maybe you roll the dice. Thats not how shootings go down.

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.


Individuals licensed to carry are allowed to carry inside gun free zones.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_A


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.


OK like what? Grenades? Dynamite? What did you have in mind that is easier to get than a gun?


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.


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."


Again, more facetious foolishness. Cars aren't manufactured to be weapons. That's the difference.

You evaded my question. Answer it.

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.

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.

There we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans. 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. 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.

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.

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!

 

Who gives a fuck what people outside America think of our domestic laws, what business of theirs is it?

What if they were cops walking around the schools armed, would that be ok? That happens constantly. What is different between a cop an a well trained teacher? No one is advocating requiring teachers to arm themselves, but plenty are former police and military who would prefer to have the ability to be armed. The problem is not the gun because even if the guns were removed the underlying cultural and psychological issues would remain, resulting in people evolving to use a different tool. Gun control is just an easy way for weak minded people to focus all of their fear an apprehension upon an inanimate object so they don't have to look too hard at the harsh realities of our society.

^^^ Next time a mosquito bites you, don't swat it or shake it off. Rather, call the cops. But remember. The cops won't get there until after the mosquito has drunk his fill and flown away freely.

If you think it's a bad idea for schools to protect themselves, you are one of the terrorists. Cops will never make it on time.

If you don't like using guns against guns, get the kids and faculty to wear full body armor at all times.



EDIT: Most of the schools in the country are so protected, that they look like penitentiaries. Do you want a strong country? Bring the kids up free, and morally strong. Kids that hide in state pens aren't free and don't have the feeling of freedom.

I'd like to know: what does this sound like to people who live outside of America? Would you want so many guns in the school of your children at all times? How about armed students?!

I don't know about you but to me that sounds like an incredibly bad idea. A huge number of things could go wrong.

Anyone wanna guess why the U.S. is also #1 in gun-related suicide?

Teachers shouldn't have to become combat-ready in order to do their jobs. Their job is already hard enough.

^^^ But all the teachers need to go armed. And the schools need to have several armed parents walking the halls at all times. And some of the more responsible students should be tested for their responsibility, and trained, and armed in the schools.

Nobody can ever scare all the terrorists away by sporting guns. But the the reduction produced by armed faculty, parents, and students, will reduce terrorism drastically. The few that get through will be dead.

OK well I know this is as good as its ever going to get regarding a concession from you, so I'll take it, thanks.

Yep, you are right, it was confusingly worded and organized. The rates per-capita are comparable. The problem is this is still not an accurate representation of actual crime rates as explained in detail here. India has a poor criminal justice system resulting in less officially reported crime. As enforcement goes up, the statistical documented "crime rate" goes up independent of the ACTUAL crime rate. In summary, you are still wrong even when you are right Nutilduhh.

You got proven wrong using your own statistics. Just own it for once in your life.

Did anyone notice how quickly this story vanished from the media after it was discovered one of the shooters was and anti-trump trans, and then the students walked out of a vigil because people were trying to politicize it for gun control?

Guns are already banned from schools, and this is precisely the reason why there are so many mass shootings in schools.

Teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry guns on school property, and this would probably stop ~all school shootings. Not every teacher needs to have a gun in their classroom, but the threat that they might have one is going to be enough to prevent someone from wanting to carry out a school shooting.

This is very tender age to understand between right and wrong. Frankly I was inspired by "James Bond" type movies. I do not know after getting gun you will like to act as "James Bond" or you will understand more better that guns are not supposed to use as you see in movies.

Anyways, why there are no charges against parents?

It was really very very sad news. Day by day increasing the crime which very causes of concern. We can see the killer or shooter targetting innocent peoples.
The government needs to take immediate action controlling the Gun.

You doing the "crisis actors" angle? Frankly, while I wouldn't completely rule it out as a possibility, I don't think that's the case here.
Not to put words in your mouth, but the way you're phrasing it indicates that you don't really take the shootings seriously; if we assume all of it is faked, it still results in underage people being afraid of what should be the safest place for them to be at -- schools.
Though, if you're wrong -- kids are being killed, that is very serious, regardless of how many end up victims.

Factor in the entire population and these events affect very few people.  Media is making a bigger deal out of this then they should.  A lot of these shooting are probably fake anyways so they have a reason to ban guns from citizens.

Why is this still happening?
And most of it keeps happening in the US, there hasn't been a single school shooting in my own country, or any of our neighbours -- ever.
Yet it happens year by year over there, dozens of times.
All the while, people just debate about gun ownership... things have really gone downhill these last several years, and they keep getting worse, is acceleration really the only option?

I definitely understand you, but I think it would be far more effective to go after the roots of the problem, rather than taking the matches from tom and dick, while leaving flint and steel and a blowtorch laying around. Think about how everything was handled after 9/11. Not to make light of the death toll, but the real damage wasn't from the immediate effects, its the fallout thats going to stick around for hundreds if not thousands of years. A 90 year old woman now has to spend 30 minutes having her rectum scanned to get on a plane because now that someone has thought of a new way to be violent, tom and dick can do it too if they want.

Gun violence may seem more prevalent because its a tool of convenience, but even dumb humans have some level of ingenuity.  If we can't kill each other with nukes, we'll use traditional explosives, if we can't use those, we'll use guns, bows, swords, knives, or rocks. Hell, the crossbow was banned by the Catholic church because it was a man killer. Sure we can make the situation slightly better by getting rid of nukes, but missiles can still do plenty of damage, and thats if we don't find something even more destructive than nukes due to the lack of convenience. My point is that if we don't fix the root problem, eventually we wont be able to leave non rounded corners on the walls of buildings, as someone will eventually find a way to use those to suit their needs.

I fixed your argument so it appropriately represents that of gun owners. You think you have a right to make yourself and your family "safe" by disarming other people. You think your rights extend to taking the rights of others. Gun owners simply want to be able to protect their own families, and "feeling" safe because guns are restricted doesn't stop a criminal. The only way to truly be safe is to protect yourself, and here it is a right regardless of your irrational fear of inanimate objects.

LMFAO you don't have anything to worry about re being confused with CH but you did make me laugh, so good one ya!!!

FWIW I am not and have never been in favour of banning all guns, that is utterly ridiculous and if you have actually left a city centre in your lifetime (and clearly you have) you will immediately realize as you rightly point out they can be the best tool for certain non human killing tasks.

In a perfect world where everyone is responsible with owning "Military hardware" I would give zero fucks if a person wanted to spend their money on it.  But in reality far too many people are fucking stupid, lazy, indoctrinated (this is a big one as indoctrination causes decent people to do evil things too often, looking at religion here) and generally not fit to lick a window let alone own fucking assault rifles.

I fully understand the argument of "why are reasonable people punished because some people are stupid" and I agree with that for a great number of things (like recreational drugs, you want to hurt yourself, go fucking crazy) but when it comes to the safety of my kids and the community I am OK with drawing the line where the VAST majority of high income industrialized nations have decided it should be (including my country).

My children will spend what 14-20 years in educational institutions, and can go there day after day without ever fearing for their motherfucking lives.  In no way shape or form do I find it reasonable to trade their potential safety and well being for letting every tom dick and retard that can be born and fill out a form own really stupid nasty hardware.

The teachers don't need any psych evals. The responsible students do.

Completely serious. After all, it's the students that die. Give them the ability to protect themselves. If the law is the problem, change the law. The State can override the Federal in this.

Yes lets get simpler... perhaps you should look up "per capita". You too Nutilduhh.

You want to give guns to student  officially? A pretty lame idea.

I read in article that gun is  "legally"  purchased by shooter parent. What is the punishment for parent to provide the gun to their child?

I do not see any charges are pressed against the parents.

I don't think that more weapons is answer.
For example Canada has a lot of similarities with America but almost no such events in their history.
Why?
Maybe americans should learn something from them.
I also do not think all those attackers were drugged but they were probably feeling depressed, isolated and unaccepted in society.
It's very complex problem.

^^^ Absolutely right! And for schools in a free land, one of the best ways is to arm teachers and a few responsible students. This way terrorist shooters will be dead before they can do much damage.

However, to start correcting the problem, we need to get rid of the medical. Why? Because the shooters were on medical drugs that drove them to the edge of craziness. That's why they did what they did. If they didn't have the drugs, they would be too docile to do much of what they did.

All this killing and man inhuman to his fellow man is really getting out of hand.  I do think that life is a bit protected in some of these advance country but the reverse is seem to be the case this days.  I think we really need to start reminding ourselves that we should value and respect life as we are not the maker of it.

First off, I just previewed this post, and it is a wall of text... I swear I'm not Cryptohunter, sorry. Don't feel obligated to address everything.

I'll first start by saying that my personal experience is that I come from a family of hunters. I've had hunters safety courses, and responsibly handle any weapons. I don't personally own any high capacity weapons, and I don't have any interest in them. I've had a run in or two with bears where I sure would have loved to have had one though, and while I don't personally understand the whole sport shooting thing, I don't really think its my place to judge. As long as people behave safely with their tools, its not my concern. That said, people doing stupid things with guns really gets under my skin.

My, wow the whole gun debate is stupid rant comes from both sides. One, I agree that there are silly loopholes. Two, those that want to patch the silly loopholes do so in the most inflammatory and aggressive ways possible, so that instead of seeing a minor and reasonable patch, it becomes an attempt to aggravate the opposing side, so that they'll respond disproportionately and make an ass of themselves. If politicians actually wanted gun reform, it could have happened by now. Its just a really good way to polarize the citizens, so you secure more voters on single issues that become more important than the rest of their opinions. We can't have independents, you must change your entire political stance if you do/don't support gun rights, abortion, or other "hot" topics that in actuality matter very little.

Its fine if we don't want to breakdown military equipment or the definition of ease, you are right, it probably isn't worth the time. The point that I was going to get across, is that there are a lot of daily things we use that were specifically for military use. The U.S interstate highway system was a military project so that we could transport nuclear missiles across the country. While I initially wanted to clarify what you considered inherently bad about a gun designed for military use in mind versus one designed for sportsman, my argument doesn't change. Its that the problem solely lies on the intent of the user, psychos shouldn't have cars, axes, or guns, they do deserve help however. On a side note, AR15s were never used by the military, they were marketed directly to the public.

I brought up what your experience is buying guns in the U.S, because I don't think its quite as easy as you think. When you walk into Walmart, there is a background check done. I've been denied the purchase of a hunting rifle, because I was attempting to legally purchase it out of state, and I have a security clearance. I've had to wait two weeks before they'd allow me to purchase a gun in my home state. For the most part, people in the US that are informed about the current gun regulations aren't under the misconception that you can just walk into Cabellas, slip them $1k and walk out with a rifle. They check your drivers license and run it against a federal database.  The debate in the US is whether they should expand the background check past just criminal history. Not many gun owners are that against the idea in general, its just that expanded background checks are incredibly expensive, and it would in effect make gun ownership impossible for many.

Where I believe there is a major breakdown, is with a misconception of where the complaint regarding gun laws lies. First off, automatic weapons are illegal. An AR15 shoots just as fast as you can pull the trigger, the same with any semi automatic rifle or handgun. The original concern before it became a hot topic, was that semi automatic rifles had the same purchase restrictions as rifles and shotguns instead of handguns.  Handguns have additional purchase restrictions because their size allows them to be concealed more easily.

I have a really hard time reading taking most politically motivated published statistics seriously. Statistics are the most dishonest math there is. You can skew data with very little effort, or by intentionally or unintentionally omitting correction factors that need to be considered. I'm not arguing that AR15s are not the most used weapon in mass shootings, its just that I can't necessarily agree that its a statistically significant metric.  With dishonest statistics, if the Toyota Camry is the most common car in the US, statistics could show that it is involved in the most car crashes. As a result, you could conclude that something about Toyota Camrys makes them prone to accidents. Unless a study is absolutely transparent about everything I normally disregard them. Again, thats not to say that I'm refuting your claim, just that I'm unwilling to make a statement about it.

I agree with Saltysplatoon about household chemicals,  you can do SO much more damage with simple chemicals bought from the store and its way easier to not get caught.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that shit out either.

Hmmm, okay. I posted a screenshot for a reason but anyway Let's try one more time in simple manner.

Murders rate Per million in India = 34.24

India has more than 1.2 Billion population. Let's say 1.2 billion for now, which means 1200 Million.

Now Let's multiply.

1200 * 34.24 = and you have your answer which is pretty close to murder rate.

For fun you can try this with US's population as well.

Hope this is helpful.  

@SS, thank you for the honest discussion it's refreshing in here, seems most users round here are frothing at the mouth and I appreciate when the norm is "busted"


I didn't say it was a major problem and I apologize if you feel I implied it was (I think perhaps you inferred my meaning but meh maybe I implied it), I mentioned it sort of tongue in cheek saying the US couldn't even legislate a silly loophole closed so good fucking luck with any kind of sane gun control legislation coming out of the House of Congress anytime soon.


I'm about 99% sure you and I will never agree on the definition of Military hardware and short of defining the ever living shit out of the term it doesn't serve a ton of value to run down specifics.  While I think you know I am not American I can see the fact that every single mass shooting I read about is done with "legally" obtained hardware. Again I don't want to define easy (it is a subjective term after all) I find it difficult to believe any logical person can argue with the fact that (considering high income developed nations) the US is the easiest country to legally obtain those weapons.  They also have the highest rate of mass shootings, those 2 figures are connected like it or not.


Ironically all of what you described is much harder than buying an AR and some ammo and strapping up and going to a church, school, work place, concert, bar, mall etc etc, literally ANYONE can do that.  You have to have a few brain cells to make a bomb, most nut jobs think they can walk away like rambo so a suicide bomb is not fucking cool to them!  Poisoning a batch of Coke would be EXTREMELY tough to do UNLESS you already had access to the facility and knew how it worked, you don't need more than a couple of working brain cells to buy, load and fire an AR.

Wow you're fast, this haven't even showed up in my feed yet. RIP and condolences to the bereaved.

I too share your sentiment on this issue. Quite shocking to find out they can just walk into a Walmart and come out with a gun. There's no easy resolution to this, they see it as their right and it is in their constitution. Seems it's was from their frontier era where there really is a need for defending their home. Read somewhere that they were encouraged back then to have arms "just in case" England try to take back the colonies.

Well first, we'd need to break down two things you said. One, what is a military style weapon, and two, how do you define easily available to anyone? Not being facetious at all here, but are you familiar with the gun buying process in the US? The private sales thing was mentioned before, and while I agree that falls under the category of a law that should be sured up, private sales like the link you posted previously are only allowed in some states. In addition, they make up a very small percentage of gun purchases. If a kid or any other wacko had slipped through the cracks and purchased a gun from a gun show, it'd be the poster argument for gun control. Because it hasn't yet happened to my knowledge, its a concern, but not a major one.

AR 15s aren't anything special, they just aesthetically look like something you'd see on a battlefield. If they were painted camo colored and equipped with a scope, they wouldn't be any different than any other semi automatic rifle that people use hunting. If your concern is capacity, you can get a Tommy gun with a 100 round drum, but those don't seem that popular right now. If you want to inflict maximum damage to maximum people, that right there is your problem. Luckily for us, more efficient means haven't been popularized by the media yet (to reiterate, no I'm not blaming the media). Hell, imagine how much damage you could do with $30 worth of household cleaners mixed together? You probably wouldn't have any problem bringing them into a building in plain sight either. Screw trying to sneak a weapon onto an airplane, how much damage do you think a criminal could do by poisoning a vat of Coke after a quality assurance test?

Side note to ease off of such a heavy topic, if you haven't seen it, there is a really good episode of Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia that does a pretty good comedy jab at the issue from both sides.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2999348/

With due respect, you criticized my source without actually reading it yourself, what does it say or mean? The stats I linked are already adjusted per-capita, so your argument is null. No this is not about the USA vs India, it is about the costs and benefits of gun ownership and the right to self defense. Everyone loves comparing the rest of the world to the US relating to "gun crimes" but then they cry about how it is not a contest when the stats work the OTHER way.

Comparing the gun crime ranking is like comparing the automotive death rate of the Amish vs the general car driving population. No shit they have less gun crime, because they don't have any access to guns to enjoy their benefits or their faults. Since cars kill so many people we should ban them. Since so many people drown in pools we should ban them too! Some people overeat we should ban food! Do you see how your logic breaks down when extended to its logical conclusions?

First thing first, It's not about India vs USA. Which I am sure you and me both agree. Having said that I want to correct you here, hope you don't mind, and if you think I am wrong, then please let me know so that I can correct myself.

Posting screenshot of data which you provided, its for other users who don't want to click on the given link.


With due respect, You posted link and didn't even care to look at your source or what does it say and mean?

The 3x murder rate you are quoting is a record of the country which has a population of more than 1.2 billion people. It's not rocket science why India has more (3x) murder rate in comparison to America.

But again, it's just common sense.

Please compare the Gun crime ranking.
USA -1
India-105

I agree banning all guns is ridiculous, my personal problem is with military style weapons.  

It's probably because it's the weapon of choice when nut jobs decide to kill people as fast as possible while being EASILY available to anyone.  If the light saber existed and was used as often as an AR-15 is to kill kids then I would assume light sabers would have a bad stigma as well.


But if someone wants to inflict maximum damage to maximum people while maintaining distance from the vitcims, neither a knife or car will do nearly as much.  Can't get my car into a church or school, if I have to knife everyone I can't do it from the room of a hotel and I won't get a chance to kill anywhere near as many people as I can with military hardware.

I can see that the problem in here is the security of the school itself. None of this will happen if they better the security. I'm not from US but I have a question, does American schools have high security or having a security guard for the school premises? On my country we have. I think this should serve a lesson to all schools for the betterment of their security.

Have you ever heard of passing by catastrophe? Is this true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_by_catastrophe. Somehow it's connected to this.

Wow. Very impressive. What you are basically telling me is if you don't own a car your chances of dying in a car accident drop significantly, so you decide it is best no one own any cars as you unilaterally ignore all of the other benefits of ownership. In this case, you ignore the fact that India, while it has less REPORTED "gun crime" it also has a murder rate that is 3 times as high (among other problems gun ownership helps with). https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/India/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime


Wow, you proved the concept exists. Good for you, you still don't know shit you muppet. Let me ask you a question. Is a criminal, some one who is willing to murder people, going to be restrained by the fact that he knows paperwork is required for him to own a gun? Is that going to prevent him from stealing one, or buying on on the black market if he wants it? No? Then all you are doing is regulating guns out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens.

Lets try another analogy. Opiates are potentially dangerous but also have legitimate benefits for some people. They are tightly controlled and contraband unless tracked and issued by a registered professional. Now if I get prescribed Oxycontin and I go home with it, is the fact that it is illegal to transfer to a 3rd party going to stop me from doing so considering I don't care about the law in this theoretical situation? Of course not. This is why your horse shit about gun show loop holes is meaningless because all it does is strip law abiding gun owners of their rights. Everyone knows prohibition and more regulations have done wonders for the drug war right? RIGHT? Of course, the issue is not really drugs or guns now is it, but the real causes are not ones Communists like you are willing to explore, so these make convenient scapegoats.

You aren't actually breaking any of this down logically, you are just running around drooling yelling "GUNS R BAD!", never once being informed about any of these subjects beyond what you feel. Frankly I don't give a fuck what a British subject has to say about our rights as free humans to defend ourselves anyway. You are a royal subject preaching the virtues of your subservience and servitude.

The (original) nuclear bomb wasn't designed to be a weapon, and silly putty was supposed to contribute towards the war effort in WW2. The intent behind its creation doesn't really matter, how people use it is what matters.

I agree, there is room for improvement with regulation, but the popular pushes are typically far too extreme, thats why they can't gather enough support. My point is that many gun owners understand and respect the tools they own. They cringe just as hard if not harder when someone does something stupid that gives guns a bad name. Scarcity would drive up price, correct, but do you think mass murdering psychos care about emptying out their bank accounts? They don't really need to worry about next month's rent. Lets be honest here, the kids that are doing school shootings aren't buying guns from the black market, they are getting them from irresponsible adults.

If I had to TLDR this, I'm for reasonable regulatory changes with more emphasis on personal responsibility. I just think that the typical pro gun control argument is just as extreme as the far right pro gun argument. You don't get progress fighting fire with fire, you get progress by making reasonable demands and concessions.

I think there lies a greater problem than guns though. Violence glorifying culture + hormonal/bad decision making + constant bombardment of information by social media/news is a bad combination. Prior to Columbine,  gun ownership laws were even less strict, yet because it wasn't glorified previously, it wasn't a common occurrence. I'm not saying the media is at fault here, but slapping a ban guns bandaid on probably won't change anything, and just creates more enemies.

Right, that and rubber duckys aren't exactly designed to be weapons.

Laws don't stop criminals but making it harder for them to acquire a gun might.

Let's just say there weren't more guns than people in America. That would mean their scarcity would drive their black market price up and potentially put them out of reach of at least some would-be mass murdering psychos.

I'm not saying guns need to be banned outright but there's definitely some room for improvement in current legislation.

I wouldn't say that an AR-15 is the best hunting/home defense weapon, but there are very real circumstances where someone may want one. I don't personally care for them, but I don't see why they are stigmatized. Knives are designed to cut, guns are designed to shoot, cars are designed to drive. If someone wants to shoot someone but doesn't have a gun, they can either stab or run down someone. Guns are just a tool, what matters is the intent of the owner.

I do not agree that people need guns to defend themselves in public. I'm fairly against open/concealed carry. If you are in the woods and you are carrying a machete to hack bush, thats fine. If you carry that machete into a grocery store, you deserve whatever is coming your way. If you have a shotgun for home defense, so be it. As long as I don't break into your house, its none of my concern.

If I had to take a stab at one of the major points of the issue is, its that the US is BIG. If there is a federal gun law, it applies to Alaska the same way that it applies to New York. Shootings aren't taking place in Wyoming, they are taking place in population centers.  People do legitimately need guns in some places, in others they may not need them, but as long as they meet certain criteria (an adult, not a felon, etc) and they take responsibility for their tools, so be it.

Only in America is a miltary weapon considered a tool.  A fucking AR-15 is designed to do 1 thing and 1 thing VERY effectively, kill a person.  IMO there is simply no need for the general public to have easy access to these types of weapons.  In all honestly I am personally happy that none of my neighbours are allowed to poses military designed hardware simply because the VAST majority are simply to stupid to be able to safely own such equipment.

My kids have NEVER once been in an active shooter drill at school, I am perfectly fine with not allowing military hardware in the GP's hands if it means my children can actually grow up without fearing being shot at fucking school...

Its a tricky issue here, because the proposals to change are too far in the extreme to get support from regular gun owning citizens. Its become a polarizing issue, because people aren't willing to talk about starting reasonable low impact measures, and testing the results. Gun violence is indeed a problem, but the best solution isn't necessarily the most extreme solution, and those are the only ones being proposed.

We could get rid of all rubber duck related fatalities if we executed anyone who owned a rubber duck, but that isn't really the best solution. If you talk to a lot of people that are pro gun rights, they don't have anything bad to say about the responsibility of gun ownership. Many have no problem with requiring basic safety measures, teaching hunters safety, properly storing cleaning, etc. Things that prevent accidents. Guns are just tools, they are a bit more convenient for violence than say a chainsaw in slasher movie style.

Gun responsibility is completely skipped over, and the first reaction after something occurs is, this wouldn't have happened if guns were illegal. People don't seem to realize that minors can't own guns legally. Their possession is illegal, yet they somehow don't seem to obey the law? Laws don't stop criminals, if you are planning on doing something that will result in a life sentence in prison or your death regardless, you don't care how much money you need to spend to obtain a weapon illegally, or the other consequences, which more often fall on the guy who wants a hunting rifle to shoot deer with. If you want to keep guns out of kids hands, teach their parents to keep their weapons unloaded and locked up, you don't need to penalize people who aren't doing anything wrong, in the process of making a statistically futile effort at lowering violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

And of course as predicted the hard alt right wing nut jobs right on Q   MOAR GUNS MURICA FUCK YA

No sir, I am not trying to decide about living arrangements of others, I just pointed out the common sense.

As @nutildah pointed out correctly that I am Indian and I only hear news about the gun shooting in my country when some terrorist attack happens or police encounters.
 


Where can I read about that more?

Most murders don't receive media attention.  Just because it happens in a school they make a big deal out of it.

Criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what, at least give regular people an option to defend themselves if they want.  Most crimes stem from wealth inequality so that is the issue that needs to be tackled if you want to stop violence.

It's truly a shame, and it's also a shame that so many Americans are so dead set on not doing anything about it. I don't think educators should have to get firearms training and have to carry a gun in order to do their job, however that's certainly the direction things are headed.


If memory serves, he's from India, which has a population of over 1.3 billion yet far fewer gun deaths a year than America. It would appear mass murder is also an American tenet.

Why is it you get to decide where others should be living though? Where do you live? Does your nation even have anywhere near 350+ million people in it? Independence and self defense are very core American tenets.



So you think this is happening because lobbyists are just so good at convincing kids to shoot up schools? What they think school shootings sell guns? I am missing your logic here. Also regarding "get special interest money out of politics (like the rest of the developed world has done)." I only have one thing to say... BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH. What a myopic twat.

Hey buddy... when there is a violent person, how is the issue resolved? Usually the plan is to call the police, you know the guys with guns... Now hear me out, I know this is an insane idea for a British subject in the land of Canukistan to grasp, but what if schools had teachers who were willing to get professional training in order to be safely armed in schools so that the good guys with guns are already there instead of having to wait 5-30 minutes for police to respond and then decide if they maybe or maybe not want to actually intervene. In the case of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the courts ruled the police didn't even have an obligation to respond since they sat outside and let the shootings continue. You are right though, we should continue letting unaccountable 3rd parties be responsible for our safety and the safety of our children. Regarding the "gun show loophole", it doesn't exist. Stop getting your information about our laws from sound bytes.

I see this as another effect of gun control in the US, a juvenile carrying gun already and shooting other students the government really need to do something about the guns in the hands of the people without license. Thanks God they were arrested by the police already, the US need to take steps to curtail all this just like other developed countries.

1) Nothing will ever change in the US until they get special interest money out of politics (like the rest of the developed world has done).
2) The common response from Muricans (especially in this nut house lol) is going to be MOAR GUNS, if those poor kids at school were armed
    with their own military hardware they could protect themselves against the crazies....

The US can't even pass legislation to close a well known "gun show" loop hole, something roughly 90% of Americans want.

Reserve for updates and good arguments from other users.

Not a good start of morning.

Another Gun violence in USA, target was school once again. according to news 7 8 students were injured and 1 student died in the shooting. 2 suspects already in police custody after shootout and news coming out that one shooter is an adult and other is juvenile, both are student at the same school.

I am aware of that "Gun" issue is very sensitive topic in America. but I as an outsider failed to understand that how come guns are so easily available for civilians and kids. there is something really wrong here and one can not say every time that shooter was a nut job or mentally disturb.

Its only my point of view as a outsider "If someone really need a gun just to feel safe then he-she living in the wrong place"  that's how I look at the gun owners especially civilians in cities.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/colorado-school-shooting-live-updates-several-injured-highlands-ranch-today-live-updates-2019-05-07/

---

---

Edit 1

Students walk out of Colorado school shooting vigil, saying their trauma was being politicized

---

Teen suspects in Colorado school shooting formally charged; case sealed