Make schools gun free zones its the better option.
There is disagreement on the statistics, of course, there always is, but one major argument against gun-free zones claims that the majority of places targeted for this kind of attack have been gun-free zones, because they make the law-abiders into sitting ducks for those who don't bother about such rules.
know, but i bet my left ball its still significantly safer then if everyone had a gun and someone started shooting.
Thing is if you want everyone to be able to have guns you cant be safe from guns.
If america started reading the well regulated part it might offer some relief but you have so many guns its doubtful you could keep them from the wrong hands anymore. If i remember right there are more guns in america then there are people.
That may be true about more guns than people but the vast majority of the people do not have guns which means some people have an arsenal. Maybe not the *right* people. Or maybe most are, there's no way to know.
Anyway, I don't want *everyone* to have guns, and I certainly believe that there should be reasonable restrictions, though I admit I'm never quite sure what that means when the conversation gets heated. I'm just arguing that it shouldn't take many responsible gun owners scattered through the population to be a better safeguard than total prohibition of guns, anywhere but certainly in any particular locale, which seems to me to be an invitation to the crazy ones. I think your notion that a school administrator couldn't be trusted with a gun is totally wrongheaded though. I don't want someone forced into the position of possessing a gun who wouldn't be comfortable in that role, but surely there are responsible mature people who could be useful in that role. Remember Israel where even schoolteachers may be carrying rifles slung over their shoulders. Their political situation makes that safer than gun-free zones for sure, and by now with all these crazies shooting up American schools it ought to be recognized that something similar is the case here too.
There are no guarantees in any case, the gun possessing good guys may not be in the right place at the right time or any other glitch may interfere with the protection sought, but when it comes to a lone shooter with an automatic weapon against a whole population of unarmed people, and a police force that can't get there in time, a few armed good guys could prevent what happened in Florida and all the other slaughters. A FEW, I say, even one or two, I'm not arguing that we all be armed. It's a RIGHT, not a mandate.
Your country is probably a lot more culturally cohesive than sprawling America with our "melting pot" culture that these days is more like a cauldron of warring gangs. Our drastically polarized political situation is just one symptom. European nations until recently could be described as more culturally unified in general. Even Canada I think. America not only has the Second Amendment which we do revere, but a current cultural situation that it seems to me would implode completely if we surrendered that amendment. We revere it partly because it was formulated out of European experience of the need of the ordinary citizen to defend against tyrannical kings. The current sense of safety in unarmed European nations today could be very possibly just a temporary reprieve from such tyrannical leaders that could change under unforeseen circumstances, perhaps even the circumstance of a disarmed America. "Progressives" and liberals always think the human race is *evolving* in the direction of a peaceful sane planet, not sensing the undercurrent of the fallen nature that inevitably brings the Hitlers and the Pol Pots and the Kim Il whatshisnames to the top when opportunity strikes.
As I recall, some of the American founders interpreted the "well regulated" part of the amendment to mean that all citizens constitute the militia. I believe some of them were quoted at the beginning of one of the gun control threads but I'd have to search for it. It's not as cut and dried as you think.
We who think gun control is not the right response to these shootings naturally have a question why that is the solution proposed by the students. Could be leftist interference, no reason why that's not a possibility.
I think it's reprehensible that gun control becomes this huge leftist cause every time there is a shooting like this, using an emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side.. I'm actually for more gun control but this is the wrong way to get it, and when you have teenagers supporting the standard leftwing position I don't trust it anyway.
I want some gun control but I may have to take it back about wanting as much as Israel has. I'd probably want more strictness about the qualifications for individuals, not just a blanket banning of guns for particular individuals.
If leftists didn't always immediately try to build their case for gun control after such a shooting, trying to pre-empt other points of view, there wouldn't be this predictable exchange of insults every time. Make the case in a neutral time rather than trying to manipulate public opinion at the most emotional possible time. And calling us wingnuts doesn't help. I'm for more gun control but I'm also a defender of the second amendment and I think having a FEW more armed people at schools and other vulnerable institutions is a reasonable solution.
Actually, what Israel does is make sure the most vulnerable places are protected by allowing more armed people there. That's the same kind of solution as arming teachers in schools, where the shootings always happen. I don't care who is armed, just some people who are charged with protecting the children, and it shouldn't take more than a few. Same wherever there is such a danger.
We have a problem with crazed shooters these days. One could spend some time trying to figure out why, possibly to good purpose, but the point is we have a particular problem that needs addressing, and taking more guns away from the good guys strikes some of us as the least sane solution.. The problem is not guns, it's crazed shooters. If you want to argue for better restrictions that really would keep guns out of the hands of the crazed ones great, I'm all for it, but we all know that isn't really possible. I'm also for better gun control in general, but I think it's really slimy of the leftists who always jump on the crazed shooter cases to try to take guns away from everybody else.
I have no idea how to deal with a situation like the Vegas shooter. Possibly if there had been someone in the crowd or nearby who had a rifle handy he might have been stopped before he did his worst. I don't know. But making sure crowds anywhere are unarmed in this day and age is NOT the sane solution.
Always characterizing your opponents in such extreme terms doesn't help the discussion. I for one have never advocated arming all people or even most people. All it should take is a few, and preventing those few from being in a position to help by, say, gun free zones, doesn't help the situation. Making a big deal about how to tell who the good guys are is also a red herring.
It certainly IS about "this day and age." We have a NEW unusual problem in this country, and it's the reason for all this talk about gun control NOW. Other countries don't have our particular problems and the comparison is unfair.
From what caffeine said, it seems Israel allows more armed people in areas where there is more known danger. Sounds extremely reasonable to me, but our situation of lone crazed shooters doesn't need more than a very few armed people, and the solution of taking away guns from the most vulnerable areas hits me as crazier than crazy. And again, stop arguing this when there's been a shooting, it makes a wacko emotional issue out of something that needs the most carefujl reasonable thought.
What false argument? Europe has Muslims, we have lone crazed shooters. I think they were stupid to get rid of their guns.
Where did I say they don't have mass shootings because they don't have many guns? I don't recall saying anything of the sort. I do recall someone saying they don't have the problems we have which we supposedly have because we have so many guns, and I accepted that as a general description of a more homogeneous society, forgetting about the Muslims. It's the left that says no guns=no shootings, why would you impute such a notion to me?
You don't have to have an identifiable mental illness to do something evil.