...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't stipulate that any person has to have a personal reason for having a gun. It's there in order to be able to form a "well-regulated militia." The amendment further does not stipulate that the militia needs to exist YET. Yes, I agree it's stupid, but I also don't see the 2nd Amendment being removed from the Bill of Rights anytime soon. We're stuck with it, which is why I don't think gun control can ever be very effective.
Yeah, there isn't nearly enough agreement yet to swing a repeal or substantial refinement of the 2nd Amendment. That hurdle will remain too high for generations. We may never see any Constitutional "fix" to the gun crime problem.
When the Framers penned "the right to bear arms" their point of reference was a single shot musket; not a 100 round auto-loading assault rifle. This batch of politicians seems gridlocked on just about everything. IMHO, only the highest court could render any refinement. So yes, I agree, very unlikely. Which is ironic, because this event spurred a huge run on guns.
If giving up my hobby, would save one child, so be it.
What are your hobbies? I can't think of one that might not, at least theoretically, be traced back to the death of a child. If your hobby involves goods made outside the united states (and how many hobbies don't anymore), there might be a foreign third world business that uses underage children and places them in mortal danger.
I have been to Los Angeles and I live in Cleveland. What does where I live have to do with anything?
There are are real cultural differences between different parts of the country (remember the recent election? red states? blue states?).
What do you think your statistics prove? They don't prove that it's merely the presence of guns that account for them.
2nd amendment aside, please explain how statistically, a state that has more guns in it makes the average person that lives there more safe from death due to a gun.
Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that in states (or cities) with more guns people are safer? Please refute an argument I have actually made.
In any large school, there will be a few teachers with military experience. Unlike police, whose primary training is in keeping the peace, a military person is trained primarily to find and neutralize a target. I would favor military training over police training. If it's a keeping the peace situation (an unruly individual, perhaps), call the cops. If someone is actively shooting, call a soldier.
Unseen, I am curious, just a few questions for you. Do you advocate armed guards in private schools? How about movie theaters or post offices? Lets face it, there have been mass killings at military bases. Perhaps public school children are a special class? Do you really think ex-military are really the best idea? My father was a front line Korean war veteran. He ran a Quad-50 half track. Lets just say it wasn't used against aircraft as it was intended. He did the best he could, but was not the most stable guy I ever met.
If you can afford a fire alarm, wouldn't you have one? Why not an armed staff member in a school? You mention private schools. I suspect private schools have a lot more security than public schools because they can afford them.
We seem to want to protect school children, I haven't heard the same outcry for theater patrons or postal customers, have you?
So, I guess protecting children is perceived as a different case.