In the .223/5.56 caliber, they are often used for pest control(prairie dogs, coyotes, etc).
Target shooting competition includes a Service Rifle division.
Almost all(if not all) states limit magazine capacity when deer/large game hunting.
From outside the USA this sounds insane. It’s just a school. What happens when that avenue is blocked - hospitals, arm the surgeons? Sports events, arm the sportsmen? Back to the Mall, arm the checkout staff?
How did a country get to this point.
Yep. More guns around may well help to diffuse mass shootings quicker. But mass shootings are very rare.
I’d bet my flak cannon that fatalities from the scenarios you list would be at least 10x more than lives saved in mass shootings.
- Some people do hunt with them and consider them great game rifles. One of their attractive features is that they are designed modularly and so are very easy to customize.
- Virtually all states restrict how many rounds your gun can hold while you’re hunting; a 30-round magazine would be unsporting to say the least.
See post #96. NO ONE WANTS BEING ARMED TO BE MANDATORY. And if seven trespassers put you in the hospital, I think maybe you should have had and used a gun then. Or do you still think you would rather have been victimized than use a gun to defend yourself?
And banning guns, by leading to increased assaults, burglaries, robberies, rapes and murders (with criminals simply using the now-illegal guns),would lead to fatalities at least 10x more than lives saved in mass shootings.
Is that what happened in other countries after gun bans were put into place? Did the crime rate go up tenfold in England after they did this? Where is your cite that the rate of crime will go up 10x in countries after they introduce restrictions on gun access. I’m sure you have some historical data to back this claim right? Or are you just pulling this ten times BS right out of you know where?
I didn’t say that the crime rate would go up 10x- I said that the additional deaths due to banning guns would be ten times the number of spree shooting deaths, which was a direct analogy to Mijin’s post; which speaks more to the statistical rarity of mass shootings than either other crimes or accidents.
About all I’ll say to this (and I’m generally a gun person) is that if the standard of training and competence for a school district’s sanctioned gun people is anything like that of most school district’s computer support people, then I’m totally against it.
They can’t manage to get even halfway competent computer people at most schools; what makes anyone think they’ll be able to get decent guards or even get decent training for those people who are carrying guns with official sanction? I imagine it’ll be a one or two day inservice that they’ll shoot bb guns at or something similar.
Better to beef up the district police forces, and have what amount to beat cops with very geographically close beats (i.e. very close together schools, or the like). For example in my area, one cop could cover the local middle and elementary schools- they’re in more or less a 3 mile long line, and a cop can easily go from one to the next in less than 5 minutes.
Ok, so then you must have proof that this is just what happened in other countries that have enacted strict gun regulations right? Its just statistics, so you should easily be able to prove this. Were deaths due to increased crime 10 times the amount of deaths that were caused by mass shootings after the new laws went into effect? I mean this assertion should be trivially easy to prove if true. We have countries that passed laws due to events like this in the past, so we have all of the crime and gun death statistics pre and post new gun laws. Your case would be better if you actually went and proved that what you’re saying will happen here has actually happened in other places after these types of laws have passed. If what you’re saying did not, in fact, happen in these other countries, then I would think we could safely disregard your warnings as nothing more than scare tactics and hysteria.
All those places you mentioned have security guards, who are often armed. (Certainly the ones at my hospital are.)
never mind - re-read.
In any case, the debate is academic (no pun intended). Some pro-gun jurisdiction, probably in Texas will give it a try. And then will we see droolingly imbecilic, incompetent teachers and staff shooting themselves and the students? Probably as much as Shall Issue carry led to blood running in the streets- NOT, iow.
The point is that places have tried stricter gun control laws, so we can see concrete examples of what happens when these laws are enacted. No reason to speculate, we can just examine the evidence to see if your claims of what would happen hold water.
On the other hand, nowhere has tried the ‘everyone carry guns at all times’ idea, so the only thing we can do is speculate.
Therefore speculation is only appropriate in one of these cases. You speculating on what would happen here under stricter gun control laws, when this has already been tried elsewhere, is pointless because we already have statistics. If they show that you are correct then fine. If, however, the statistics in these countries do not show what you are claiming, then you continuing to speculate is nonsense.
The only thing we can do for the theoretical plan of arming everyone is to speculate becuase it hasn’t been tried yet.
See the difference?
I think people are losing their heads here.
While this is indeed a tragedy, and similar incidents have happened, this is not a everyday occurrence, and allowing teachers to carry firearms is not the answer. I think this is more a mental health issue than a true gun issue - it’s hard to stop a madman with a plan.
Schools could stand better security, such as metal detectors and checkpoints.
But truthfully, if it has come to the point that it is necessary for teachers to carry a firearm in case of a potential attack from a madman, you can just stop the Earth and let me off right here.
I might argue this is most certainly not the norm. I have worked in several hospitals, some of which were very much inner city, ‘gun and knife club’ type places and as a general rule none of the security guards there are armed (with guns). Especially if you have an ER or Behavioral Health Unit, they should only have non-lethal devices due to the risk of losing control of them if they have to physically take down or restrain a patient. It’s basically the same principle used in prisons.
As a paramedic I have seen a lot of things that have had a serious emotional impact on my life and that I’m sure will stick with me for life; but only once have I felt terrible, primal-level fear. That was when I saw a jail clearance patient who was incorrectly restrained pull a distracted police officer’s pistol from his holster. Luckily no shots were fired, but I still get a twinge when I think about it.
On topic, I wonder if the OP would be okay with trained and certified student volunteers carrying weapons for the same reason? There are lots of 18 year olds in most high schools, who can legally purchase and carry these weapons outside of school. If the idea is that you’re going to increase the number of guns in a public place as a way of improving safety by reducing response time and deterring spree killers, why not go all the way?
In terms of deterrence and defense it might be a good idea; but I doubt it would be workable simply because students aren’t school employees, and therefore can’t be expected to act under the school’s aegis.
Their purpose could include though not limited to: home defense, urban defense, safe queens, collections, etc.
We have a partial example in the passing of Shall Issue gun carry in a majority of states. Did more people carrying guns in public lead to more public shootings? No.
I’m willing to admit that in theory an absolute ban on firearms might work; it depends strongly on the society in question and whether the ban could be made effective, or if it would be flouted as routinely as narcotics laws. But I also believe that the polar opposite- “everyone carry guns at all times” would also work, if it could be given a try. A lot of pro-gun people would like the chance to see.
There are either/or choices where either alternative works while any compromise between them doesn’t. Right now we’re at about that place with regard to firearms: criminals and psychotics can get them relatively easily, while most law-abiding people don’t carry them routinely.
Isn’t there a fairly simple argument to be made that teachers occasionally fail to operate under the expected policies and procedures a school has as well? How long do you think it would be before headlines like “Teacher Brandishing Weapon to Break Up Fistfight Accidentally Shoots Student” and “3rd Grader Shoots Classmate After Finding Unlocked School Defense Weapon”? Teachers are only human, prone to errors and mistakes in judgement as the rest of us, possibly more so, since their primary job is definitely not ‘Defend children with lethal force as needed’.