If You Live In One of These States and Care At All About Education. . .

ok first no child is getting a gun

and second yes guns should be allowed. teachers and other staff should be able to have them with proper licensing and training because with the amount of school and nonschool shooting in the US, we need a way to protect the students and faculty other than by using security guards, which mind you, i doubt a lot of schools have because they have to be hired or directly employed which either way costs states and/or school districts money that they sadly rather not spend or just dont have the budget to do so.

muunkee is right

 

Isn't that what IS schools look like

 

Sandy Hook is what happens without guns in schools.

And to clarify, students will not be allowed to bring firearms, only trained faculty. Do you really see increased security at schools as a threat..? As for the bear, that was said as an example of a purpose. Let me put a trigger warning for all the pansies out there,

[B]TRIGGERED[/B] (open) [B]TRIGGERED[/B] (close)

other examples include student shooters and outside shooters.

Shit happens, and when it does, we sure as hell better be ready for it.

 

Dude, I'm about as republican as it goes, but thats probably the worst way of thinking in the world.

 

Guns in schools is a terrible solution. For one, it'd completely put kids off being in the presence of a firearm or an armed guard. For another, evidence has proven that only a very small percentage of mass shootings are stopped by armed civilians. Columbine had armed guards.

More guns is not a solution to gun violence.

 

So give a better solution.

 

Increased gun control to stop the shootings from happening in the first place.

 

Gun control doesn't work to prevent mass shootings

 

Australia's total ban of guns in 1996 did that pretty well, Bill Clinton's very specific ban of assault weapons in 1994 didn't. Also, arming more people doesn't prevent mass shootings either.

 

@KlutchDecals your turn

 

I don't trust any of my teachers. They are fking crazy. gg america

 

oh, come on

 

If we look at statistics, I think it's important to notice that America has had more school shootings than most every western European country combined. We should also then notice that all of those countries that have had abysmally low shootings, comparatively, have also either completely banned, or practically banned, civilian fire-arm usage.

I understand the sentiment in protecting children completely, but the American approach is obviously not working as is. And to say that banning guns is not the solution because then the children are left defenseless is overlooking history. Sandy Hook's shooter had a legally registered firearm (that he stole from his mother), and Columbine had guns on the school's side as well, yet both of these cases resulted in excessive loss of life regardless.

I know that in most cases, banning things only leads to unregulated black-market/cartel trade, but we have to realize that the majority of the wack-jobs who go on to use these guns to commit acts of violence against innocents simply do not have the mental capacity or resources of acquiring illegal ammunition, only illegal organizations that have no reason to shoot up anyone but rivals, which is unavoidable and mute to this argument.

Fighting fire with fire only leads to more fire. But that's just my opinion.

 

Out right banning guns would be impossible because that goes against our Constitution and trying to get an amendment passed to repeal it would be near impossible. Hell, a lot of the right wing thinks it is unconstitutional just to limit who is allowed to own guns. It is easier for other countries to pass laws banning guns but a lot if not most US citizens believe that the ability to own a gun is an unalienable right that allows us to protect ourselves from our own government should it become tyrannical and other threats.

 

That's a very true statement. But that is also why the US will continue to have more shootings than any 1st world nation.

What we can do, however, is attempt to stop the spread of guns into unnecessary places, like schools, by not voting in people who have absolutely no qualifications besides donating to trump enough.

 

I honestly don't think it'll work at this point. Guns have WAY too high availability at this point. I can probably buy one from one of my next door neighbors if I tried. Its soooo easy to find a gun online, find a seller, and as of right now I can get a rifle with no problem and no license as soon as I turn 18... Granted I doubt rifles are often used in crimes but you see my point.

Honestly, I think a public place like a school should have the correct people having guns, meaning teachers, security, and possibly some other staff (I don't know the full staffing in schools, I'm homeschooled lol)
But really, at this point restricting guns for everyone, its still too available for the bad ones, much less available for the good ones. Its not a good thing regardless of which way we move forward - whether that's tightening up the laws, loosening, or staying the same....

 

This entire post is full of ignorant kids who have never held a gun. I can slaughter this entire thread but its literally not worth my time. lmao.

 

Please slaughter them I want to watch.

 

2013-

In America, there were 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).

In Australia, there were 208 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (0.96 deaths per 100,00 AU citizens).

In Denmark, there were 4 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (0.07 deaths per 100,00 DK citizens).

Using the logic that more guns = more safety is outright stupidity at this point. Simply look at the statistics.

 

We can't undo the fact that there are so many guns so easy to get right now that increasing control now/later would not be beneficial