I think of a few teachers trying to fire a gun at my son's school and I'd rather take my chances with the gun in the hand of the kids.
Possible but not probable. A teacher with a gun would have they're behavior closely watched. If I were a student I would rather be in a class with a teacher that has a gun.
I have a Facebook friend who has already said if they'd left Trump alone maybe they'd have stopped this.
I don’t know what sensible gun control looks like. Some would say lose the AR platform. Fine. You have high cap handguns. Lose those. Fine, you have 10 round handguns. Lose those. Fine, you have 12 shot revolvers. Lose that. Fine, 6 shot revolvers. Lose those. You have 7 round 000 buckshot shotguns. Lose those. Fine, you have 3 round 000 buckshot shotguns. Lose those. Fine. You have 5 shot high powered rifles. Lose those. Fine. You have 3 shot high powered rifles. Lose that. Fine. You have muzzleloaders. So now sensible gun control means we’re okay with 1 or 2 deaths. Is that sensible?
How do you decide which teachers get guns? What happens when inevitably a very stupid teacher (not that all teachers are dumb, but there are zillions of them, statistically there have to be a good number of dumb ones) gets a gun, is irresponsible with it, and some kid blasts his/another's face off?
You wouldn't decide, the teacher would. By going through a handgun carry course, getting licensed by the state, then any additional mandated training the school board requires. But if they were still dumb, they go to prison. The municipality probably settles a civil suit, and then that school now has a police presence.
People are the problem, a gun is a useful tool and also can be fun recreationaly. If there was a way, which there is not, to keep guns out of murderers and criminals hand everything would be fine.
Would the person/persons carrying be some big secret? Otherwise a planned attack like Columbine seems like it would still go off without a hitch. You just make sure the first person you take out is the armed person.
If you only have one teacher, sure. I would make the principal and vice principal mandatory. Now you have at least two. I wouldn’t make it a secret. I’d make it public. If you want to successfully pull off this attack, you need to find a way to ambush these X people. The probability of your success decreases the larger X becomes.
This is an interesting point. Would he have? I'm not sure. I've made that argument before myself, but I think it might be prudent to reexamine whether it's a sound one. I mean, fundamentally I agree with the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Hell, I own the below t-shirt and wear it regularly. The counter to that position, though, is that with the automatic weapons maybe it just becomes too easy. Like, you can still make methamphetamine without the OTC cold medicine, but when Oregon outlawed buying the cold medicine in bulk, meth production was stopped virtually dead in its tracks. It's an interesting analog.
So, a 2007 study indicated that there were 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US. Almost 1 gun for every person. Conservative republican gun owners can't possibly cover that entire number. There is a very large left leaning contingent that also own guns. How can the left blame the 4-5% of gun nuts that are passionately opposed to gun control as the sole reason that more laws haven't been passed? I'm own a few guns...nothing fancy...but I'm not really passionate either way. I just think it's a really lazy [uck fay]ing argument to blame a small sector of the population for every atrocity that happens. If there is so much support among the left for gun control, why aren't they mobilized and standing on the capital steps?
