




Girl's Behavior
Guy's Behavior
Flirting
Dating
Relationships
Fashion & Beauty
Health & Fitness
Marriage & Weddings
Shopping & Gifts
Technology & Internet
Break Up & Divorce
Education & Career
Entertainment & Arts
Family & Friends
Food & Beverage
Hobbies & Leisure
Other
Religion & Spirituality
Society & Politics
Sports
Travel
Trending & News 




Arm everyone. Mass shootings fall under the soft target category, same with malls, some infrastructure like water plants, etc. What they all have in common is being gun free zones and very easy to access by nature of their intended purposes. A hard target would be a national guard armory, nuclear material (including medical like a cyclotron), maternity wards, etc. where access is restricted, and several guards rotate on shifts with security system exemptions from OSHA to lockdown facilities.
Crazies trying to get attention, send a message, live their delusion or whatever will go for the easiest target. Very rarely are hard targets hit (even more rarely are they infiltrated). Hell, rarely are even gun stores hit though the security is lax, access is easy, and there is a lot of value that is easy to move. If everyone is armed, the only easy target left is for them to just go kill themselves.
It would be pretty simple to implement as well, bid out a project for a.380 pistol that simply needs to be reliable, the cz frame would be best, supply one pistol, one magazine, and a box of 50 rounds of ammo at the completion of a safety and basic marksmanship course, every 3 months go to the local police station to shoot using your 50 rounds, every year a new safety course and inspection to see if the weapon needs to be serviced, replaced, whatever. An old lady can shoot.380, so that would be fine. In a way it would be gun control.
I'd say as far as issuing firearms that it would be only for adults, only those who sign up for the program I describe above, and they are responsible for attending the training, and financially if the weapon is "lost".
I had my first shotgun, a crack barrel.410 when I was about 8. I was out in the country though. If milk jugs were set up by the tree line to shoot, hunting squirrels, rabbits, ducks, w/e, no worries about the back drop. If it was suburb or city that would be wildly inappropriate, or if my parents weren't hands on about making sure I could shoot, understood firearm safety, and never to let anyone else touch it.
Of course I did some dumb things, that was when I was a teenager though. 13-16 year olds should not have guns, besides potato guns lol That is just me though, there were plenty of of my friends/family who got guns early and acted like straight menaces. I had to knock one of my cousins out with a buttstock and take his away one time because he was shooting everywhere, including my direction, and where houses possibly were. That gives you a mighty cold sweat.
So trained cops have a hit rate of 18%. What would an overworked teacher with a gun be? 2%?
www.ajc.com/.../
Honestly it wouldn't matter, the point is to be a deterrent. Criminals have a hit rate of around 10% if I remember right. Suppressive fire is a thing, if everyone else has a weapon, one person trying to start a rampage, again, can only kill themselves. They start shooting, and immediately multiple people are in a position to pin them down and call the cops. Whether they kill them or even hit is irrelevant if they can change the area from a kill zone into isolating the shooter.
"Gun control" is NOT going to rid our society of firearms regardless of one's position on that topic. Also locking down schools has a lot of problems. If some teenage person with BPD or ASPD gets ahold of a firearm something that is easy to do even with tough gun control laws on the books, there is nothing to stop them from hurting others. If they can't do it at a school, what about a bus stop? Or a mall where teens hang out? Or a movie theatre while teens are waiting to see a movie? I have no issue with schools having a resource officer as well as metal detectors in place. The problem I have is thinking gun control or locking down schools makes teens safer. I honestly don't think either does.
---and there are many other countries that have not had mass shootings either. I am not an expert on this subject. My expertise is in STEM and Systems engineering. I am ONLY going by my gut here. There is a lot more to mass shootings than just the availability of firearms. How many times over the last 10 years have we had people to use cars as a weapon? You want to get a fright? Go ask a chemist how easy it is to make a poison that will kill hundreds of people. Mass killings these days are not so much about the availability of a weapon but having some person with ASPD and a cause willing to kill. I'm not trying to be an asshole. I have been close to shootings before. I am NOT happy with how many people are carrying illegal firearms. I just think the solutions to these problems are MUCH more complex then removing a few weapons from the streets.
Prisons can also be called "Forts" not only does it protect against shooters but kidnappers to.
Many times, non custodial parents pick up kids or take them. Could also be random strangers doing it to.
Besides, we already have complex gun control, so we'd need less laws to make it simple and not remove any rights... or else they'll never stop, give an inch more and more will go.
Seriously?
Not since Kennedy. But security those days was not as stringent as it is today. Also, a lot less than there have been children killed. Security can only do so much. If anyone really wanted to shoot up a school a little security wouldn't stop them.
What has that to do with schools? The President is the Secret Service's problem, not the schools.
@Agagagagaga have I said I didn’t? It’s always apocalyptic with you gun nuts. I simply want “some” regulations. Not annihilation of all gun rights. Jesus.
@DanielleB23 Her meme suggests guns make people safer. Presidents are #1 on it,
Opinion
12Opinion
Neither. Gun control only keeps guns away from law abiding citizens and doesn't affect criminals.
The security wouldn't work unless there were armed guards around the perimeter and kids all had to go through a metal detector to get into school.
The only reason there aren't FAR more school casualties when someone decides to attack a school is because it is often the students themselves doing it and they aren't very intelligent. As someone that has worked in schools for 12 years, I am glad that the school attackers haven't figured out the ways I have realized would be most damaging and harmful for a school attack.
No guns used at all, and only items that are easily accessible and not illegal for kids to have would be far more deadly if they thought of what to use and how and when to use them.
The best way is to prevent incidents by having discussions with students at the beginning of the year explaining the importance of reporting any harmful devices or weapons brought to school by anyone, even their friends, or reporting conversations where students discuss doing harmful things on school grounds. They can also reduce casualties by properly training school staff how to respond so the initial room/location where an incident occurs is the only place it does and denying criminals access to the rest of the rooms/buildings.
Since we keep doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results, maybe we acknowledge that guns aren’t going anywhere and we start focusing on school security and mental health. Encourage firearms to be locked up at home by providing tax reductions for firearm safes and gun locks/cases. Implement school resource officers and bring in therapists for children to be able to confide in. We need to rethink education as a whole in this country because it isn’t working.
schools should be prisons. it would certainly teach the kids you never want to fail and repeat. dropouts might be high but they were gonna fail anyways. the bullying would be close to zero because kids could tell the guards. it's a great idea
Neither. Nothing kills more Americans than other Americans.
Al-Qaeda just needs to get into the American gun market to cause more problems and make more profits.
gun control no guns, no shootings. simple as that. I don't know how those NRA nuts always manage to convince people that weapons can't possibly be part of the problem.
The answer to gun violence, isn't more gun violence
That's the NRA' answer to everything, to profit
You lost the ability to claim you care about children's mental health when you advocated for Covid restrictions.
Lmao. So what you ended up with was still covid and a bunch of children psychologically scarred, academically falling behind, inflation, shortages, a shitty shot that gives you blood clots, society fractured, fucked up economies, unelected bureaucrats acting like dictators and the greatest theft of wealth from the middle class to the elite.
Bra-fuckin-vo.
@OddBeMe Why am I not surprised.
You’re one of those assholes who believes that is everyone, every last single mother fucker in American locked down for week after week and shot themselves up with drugs the politicians would just make this all go away.
You’re blaming Republicans for the goddamn policies of Democrats. As usual.
Go staple your goddamn mask to your face and take your 17th booster shot. Look at your stupid, stupid face in the mirror and shake your fist at the Republicans you see all about you. It’s all their fault.
Gun control doesn't work even a little bit. I would say armed security and mental health care.
Mass security go and gun control go, we dont need those things but sadly we do in 21st sentury because of bad people
It’s not that simple…. It’s not one or the other…
Harmful is letting kids with emotional problems go without being treated.
@OddBeMe
I think the reason she's dodging the question is because you're asking and nearly impossible to answer question
Both options are so piss poor that they equally suck probably
On one hand you can make children go unhinged because they literally feel like they are going to prison and are also having to deal with staff who are saying they want to shoot people because they do something normal kids do everyday which is just ludicrous and is not good for your health and ironically could lead to a school shooter
And the other option is basically getting rid of people's right to defend themselves so that way they can't attack people which ironically just means that people are going to be an easier Target
A lot of times when guns are used in violent crimes they're illegally obtained I think I'm not sure and I'm not going to go look up the statistics cuz it's not worth my time
Anyways I have seen specific incidences where felons have had guns and committed violent crimes now keep in mind felons aren't even legally allowed to own guns and I'm not even sure they're even allowed to enter a gun shop so they're not getting these guns from gun shops or whatever they're getting these guns from somewhere else don't know where they're getting them because I don't really need to know nor do I really want to know but they are illegally obtaining guns and so if guns are banned they're still going to get a hold of guns because they're doing so illegally and there are other places that make guns it's not just the United States
So neither option is good both of these options are so bad that I don't really think it's fair to have someone choose between the two
It's kind of like me asking you would you rather throw a puppy out of an eight-story building knowing it is 100% going to die
Or hitting the puppy with the brick knowing it's 100% going to die
Both are gruesome both are blunt force trauma and you have to see both
Fact is they both suck so it wouldn't be fair for you to have to actually choose one of these two options sure you could pick a random one but that ignores the point of the question which is which one would you rather do because picking a random question isn't you picking something you would rather do that is you picking something random random leaves you out of the question for the most part
@crossdressingrihno exactly what I say. Those two r not options…. Mental health is. The guy in Minneapolis that ran over all the people at Christmas ……. Do we have car control to avoid that. 5 people dead n more injured including kids.
security and weapon control.
I would not call either harmful…
it is needed for their safety and I think that is definitely way less harmful than a kid seeing someone get shot or possibly getting shot themselves
are there better ways to make sure there’s enough security? yes of course, but that requires a lot of money from the government and until they’re ready to let go of their greed and take care of their schools safety then it will stay like this
Kids have to walk to school through drug dealers and prostitutes and their pimps. Maybe school security checkpoint would actually make them feel safe for a change.
I reject your premise and narrow options...
Metal detectors.
gun control
You can also add your opinion below!