This will continue to happen as long as schools remain soft targets.
so give the teachers guns?
"All these kids dying is the schools' fault for being 'soft targets'" is definitely one of the dumbest statements regarding school shootings that I've seen
"Make everything an armed fortress!" is a collosally stupid and shortsighted "solution"
Plenty of countries have managed to greatly reduce or even nearly curb gun violence without staffing businesses and schools with armed guards. Know how they did it? Reducing the overall amount of available guns and regulating gun ownership. It's not rocket surgery
2nd amendment does not make all guns and gun owners untouchable. We can pass laws to regulate ownership and draft comprehensive buyback plans to reduce the number of guns on streets and in households, among other solutions (universal healthcare with robust mental health coverage, etc)
Look at Uvalde. What good is having an armed presence at the school when people with guns piss themselves in fear of being shot themselves? They stood by and listened to the screams of helpless dying children. Having armed guards isn't going to prevent or even minimize all shootings. You can put a gun in someone's hands and train them how to point it and shoot, but all the training on the planet can't give a coward a backbone
If only guns weren't legal meaning, allowing anyone who wants one a murder weapon is just stupid.
I'm saying that if the potential threat knows that it won't be an easy peasy shooting gallery, they most likely won't even attempt it.Shootings happen regularly at military bases, which have armed guards as well as armories accessible to the service members. Sometimes several armories, depending on the size of the base.
If they're trained and want to, sure. Or hire veterans, maybe.
The reason schools are targeted is because they're soft targets, whether the perpetrator attended or not.
Murder is illegal. How is that working out?
An overwhelming majority of school shootings are carried out by somebody with a connection to the school. It's pretty rare that it's somebody saying "I feel like shooting a bunch of people, that random school looks nice and vulnerable."
Another good point. The motivation is not "that looks like an easy place to shoot up". It's typically someone with some personal connection to the place.
No. Not "because" there's no resistance. It's because they have a connection to the shooting location. That there is little or no resistance may factor into the decision for some, but it is not the primary motivating factor. It's largely coincidence that there are no guards at these shootings.
And as was already pointed out, military bases are targeted by shooters. The White House and other government buildings/agencies have been targeted. Hardly "soft targets."
This will continue to happen as long as schools remain soft targets.I wonder how other countries handle that issue... has anyone ever asked them?
1 Dead Several Injured so far...Yeah, and the broader impact of a school shooting is that the entire community feels threatened and unsafe.
Again, military installations and the White House have been targeted by shooters. You seem determined to stick this notion that shooters are motivated by soft targets, which is plainly erroneous.
Regardless, removing and regulating firearms would help more, as is evidenced through other countries which have had success with reducing firearms violence.
Again, military installations and the White House have been targeted by shooters. You seem determined to stick this notion that shooters are motivated by soft targets, which is plainly erroneous.
Regardless, removing and regulating firearms would help more, as is evidenced through other countries which have had success with reducing firearms violence.
I wonder how other countries handle that issue... has anyone ever asked them?
Other countries also have a different culture and difference in population then ours.
Said culture being "not every Joe Schmoe needs an AR-15" and it seems to be working out pretty well for them.
How would you remove/regulate firearms?
What's wrong with having an AR-15? I have one. It's a pretty solid rifle.
* Regular background checks, mental health screening, and safety training to maintain a firearms license
* No firearms sales without a valid license (license system should incorporate a digital/app component to facilitate this for private sales)
* Mandatory 2-week waiting period on all gun purchases
* A proper registry of all guns sold with more consistent rules for serial numbering (not the microfilm nonsense they've got now because of the NRA's insistence on hobbling registration efforts)
* At all times, every gun registered to a given owner must be secured in a manner that only the owner (not the owner's spouse, friends, kids, or anyone else) can access, except one that is kept on the owner's person at all times in accordance with local carry laws
* If anyone else uses an owner's gun, they must be supervised by the owner in doing so and the owner will be automatically considered partially responsible for any crimes committed using that gun (similar to how car insurance works when letting somebody borrow your car)
* If an owner loses control of their gun for any reason (e.g. theft), this must be reported to police within 24 hours to avoid liability
Possibly a few other ideas and tweaks to the nuance of everything (like specific numbers), but that's the gist of it. You'll notice that most/all of those already line up with what responsible gun owners do, which avoids the dreaded "punishing responsible gun owners" issue and instead forces everyone to be a responsible gun owner. It's not perfect, but waiting periods and greater accountability for keeping guns secured will go a long way to keeping guns out of the hands of people in crisis (especially kids that can't buy their own guns in any circumstances), which in turn can be expected to prevent suicides and mass shootings.
Every Joe Schmoe does not need one.
Why AR-15's specifically?
Why not them specifically?
What's your reasoning for banning AR-15's?
I never said I wanted to ban them.
Mental health is something that really needs to be addressed. That's the main thing, imo.That is not the main thing.
Ok, so who do you think should be allowed one if "every Joe Shmoe doesn't need one"?
That is not the main thing.Mental health is definitely the main thing. Just because someone has no documented history of having mental health issues doesn't mean they don't.
Game hunters or active military members.
Mental health is definitely the main thing. Just because someone has no documented history of having mental health issues doesn't mean they don't.
If someone thinks that shooting up their school, a mall, their place is employment, etc., is a healthy response to the problems and stressors they are facing in life is not in a healthy mental state. Regardless of access to guns, that person who thinks violence is the best course of action needs help. They aren't coping properly with the same issues that all of us face daily without lashing out. That is very clearly a mental health issue.
Don't bang your heads against this wall on potd.
You're not going to change anyone's mind. Their favorite talking heads have filled their ears with skewed data and false statistics and misunderstandings of gun classifications to the point where they cannot hear anything other than demonic raving if you say anything to the contrary.
Just live happily knowing that as much as they scream, they will never be able to take your guns away.
That's a simplistic way of looking at it.Of course it is. It was a quick response, not a detailed outline of what I would envision as comprehensive gun reform.
Of course there are shootings on military bases. Performed by trained soldiers with mental illness. School shootings are mostly perpetrated by kids with mental illness. There's a good chance that armed security will deter an armed kid.There's an even better chance that reducing the amount of available firearms and better regulating those that remain available would deter school shootings altogether. Don't need "deter an armed kid" if they can't become armed in the first place.
How would you remove/regulate firearms?
That is not the main thing.I think mental health is definitely at least a huge factor. Mental health and substance abuse are bigger problems in the US than at least most of the developed world. But acting like guns aren't also the problem is disingenuous at best. We have too many guns and too many people with serious mental health issues that have easy access to them
Case in point: literally every country in the world has mentally ill people, yet the US is alone in dealing with an epidemic of mass shooting.
Most mass shooters have no history of mental illness, nor any indication that they are suffering from a mental condition.
On the bright side it's only the first shooting of the year.
Of course it is. It was a quick response, not a detailed outline of what I would envision as comprehensive gun reform.
There's an even better chance that reducing the amount of available firearms and better regulating those that remain available would deter school shootings altogether. Don't need "deter an armed kid" if they can't become armed in the first place.
As darkknight pointed out, most mass shootings are not perpetrated by people with a history of mental illness. Mental illness certainly needs to be addressed in the US, but mental illness is not the core issue with gun violence. The core issue is the overt saturation of firearms and their availability to the public.
Much of what adjl noted, though I will add that all firearms should be insured, like automobiles. There should be a limit to the number of firearms a person/household can own. No one should be able to amass a personal arsenal. Same with ammunition. A reasonable amount of ammunition for personal use. No one should have a stockpile of bullets where they could essentially murder thousands of people.
Yeah, none of that would ever happen nor be 100% possible in the real world. Nobody would allow that.It's been done in other countries. Buybacks.
That would never be a thing here lol
Yes. That's the problem.
It's been done in other countries. Buybacks.