world

U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

117 Comments
By JENNIFER C. KERR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

117 Comments
Login to comment

Terrorizing children is the price of freedom right-wingers' interpretation of the Second Amendment imposes on America; meanwhile, they're in a frenzy about toilet usage. Priorities.

4 ( +17 / -13 )

More than two-thirds of school districts surveyed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office conduct “active shooter” exercises.

100% of the NRA's efforts are focused on creating the "active shooters" these drills are designed to stop.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

More and more employers are offering active shooter training to help insulate themselves from negligence claims and citations by Department of Homeland Security and OSHA alleging a failure to maintain a safe work environment for employees. I imagine it is the same with schools.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Reminds me of the 1950's when we practiced hiding under our classroom desks in case of a Russian nuclear attack.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

In the case of elementary schools on down, why not build small bunkers (such as behind blackboards) in classrooms with passages for escape which only children could fit through? Or maybe some other kind of child size rabbit hole for kids to escape through which leads outside of the classroom or to another room?

This would be far from foolproof, but at least some kids might have a chance to escape from a psychotic intruder who wants to harm them.

It just doesn't seem like lockdowns and fire drills are going to cut it and some serious thinking outside of the box which is simple, safe and practical is required.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Terrorizing children is the price of freedom right-wingers' interpretation of the Second Amendment imposes on America;

If liberals would back out and STAY out of everyone else's lives and get rid of these gun free zones, there would be a lot less angst in some schools that have the potentiality of having violent outburst because immediate action can be taken and the threat can be neutralized, but as long as the communist liberals try, the Second Amendment will always be under threat!

meanwhile, they're in a frenzy about toilet usage. Priorities.

And rightfully so.

-17 ( +5 / -22 )

Terrorizing children is the price of freedom right-wingers'

Wake up dude . . . . young kids in america Love their X-Box's & PS4's. Often playing games like GTA, Battlefield and the long series- "Call of Duty." All these games idolize fire power. Nice try.

meanwhile, they're in a frenzy about toilet usage.

Apparently, they're not the only ones making a fuss. Look at all the Targert shoppers. How dare you defend someone like Caitlyn Jenner here. Priorities?

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Duck and cover kids!

Ah. What is childhood without existential fear? I distinctly recall that we had the "hide under your desk" variety, but that eventually gave way to a policy where we left our classrooms in single file and sat against the stronger walls of the halls, ducking and covering. I grew up in the warm comfy security of ground zero.... between Titan and Minuteman silos, a SAC BASE, a heavy population target and federal center, and two more or less secret installations.

Who in the world would have thought that 25 years after the end of the Cold War, American children would be cowering in fear... of each other? I am thinking only Rosanne Rosannadanna could have predicted it.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It just doesn't seem like lockdowns and fire drills are going to cut it and some serious thinking outside of the box which is simple, safe and practical is required.

Thinking outside the box, such as getting rid of guns?

Or is that too far outside the box?

If liberals would back out and STAY out of everyone else's lives and get rid of these gun free zones, there would be a lot less angst in some schools that have the potentiality of having violent outburst because immediate action can be taken and the threat can be neutralized

Most of these school shootings happen outside the gun free zones. Has there ever been a school shooting stopped because someone had a gun?

You seem to not realize that these guys go into these school shootings with the intention of ambushing, before anyone can react. And they are ready to die most of the time.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Only in the US is it the 'better' option to have these kind of drills in schools than just to get rid of guns. What an arse-backwards nation. Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

child size rabbit hole for kids to escape through which leads outside of the classroom

Must American kids be reduced to frightened rabbits?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Wake up dude . . . . young kids in america Love their X-Box's & PS4's. Often playing games like GTA, Battlefield and the long series- "Call of Duty." All these games idolize fire power. Nice try. Same with Japanese kids and there are no mass shootings here.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Intruder drill seems the most important drill of all in America and will become just another ordinary drill like fire drill. Good for kids! As for me, its unbelievable.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Only in the US is it the 'better' option to have these kind of drills in schools than just to get rid of guns. What an arse-backwards nation. Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns.

That would be a difference of opinion, I think the exact opposite, especially when I see Europe being hit by radical Islamists, let them try that here on a massive scale. Sure, they did that cowardly soft target attack at San Bernardino, but on a more larger, horrific scale, even those loons aren't that stupid, because we would never allow ourselves like that to be a target. So "IMHO" I feel the Europe is ass-backwards when it comes to this issue.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

carmel, Indiana is a upper middle class community and was voted the #1 city in the US a few years ago. Two words, white flight. So if you're blessed enough to be able to move here with the $300,000. Home prices, good for you. But this is not the norm. The population has grown from 25,000 in 1990, to 88,000 recently. Draw your own conclusions.

And I would bet you that most of the home owners in this "angelic" city own handguns, hunting weapons and identify as conservatives. Bernie and trump handedly won the state with voters from this county voting 2/3rds republican.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Most of these school shootings happen outside the gun free zones. Has there ever been a school shooting stopped because someone had a gun?

Well there was that prom shooting just a few weeks ago in Wisconsin but that wasn't exactly at a school but it was a school sponsored event that was stopped by someone with a gun....

Then you also had that Texas school shooting where you had an anti-islam rally that was attacked.

Or is that too far outside the box?

Well it is obviously too far outside the box considering no nation, including Japan has gotten rid of gun ownership.

Only in the US is it the 'better' option to have these kind of drills in schools than just to get rid of guns.

Do you seriously think that is a practical option in a nation of 300+ million firearms, and over 10 million being manufactured annually?

Quite frankly I think the drills are irrational, if you take the 57 divided by 13 you get just over 4 homicides per year or a 0.01 per 100,000 gun homicide rate at schools from firearms, which is basically the same homicide rate at schools for the UK and Canada, to further put that into perspective more children die on school sport teams than from gun homicides on average.

The American school homicide rate is really not any higher than other developed nations.

Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns.

Yeah it is so stupid that as a result one hundredth of one percent of its population is killed by it each year......

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

U.S. schools preparing for the worst, with active shooter drills

Hey wait !! Guns not the problem. What about mental health? We ought to trying to identify the bullied . . . .who later form groups like the "Trench Coat Mafia" @Columbine. Or the sexually frustrated wackos like VA Tech. shooter and Santa Barbara University shooters.

Health mind, body = healthy trigger finger.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

what will happen is people will start home schooling or making their own gun free zone schools. Such non sense was never an issue back in the day. Sure, you got bullied but you would get with your crew and do some mischief. There was some pretty heavy bullying that went on back in the day, what they do now is lame, but blasting somebody is weak, its the weakest coward there is. Its due to the parents and community not instilling values that make such cowardice an embarrassment to ones self. Christian values were taught to respect life, now these morons are looking abroad to countries like Japan for inspiration not realizing many of them are more sick than they are.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Something as dumb as active shooter drills only exists in America, in a country where everyone lives under the assumption that he or she can be killed at any given moment by random people legally possessing weapons.

Christian values were taught to respect life

Good joke, thanks for making my day.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Welcome to the USA in the 21st century.

2 ( +5 / -4 )

"Thinking outside of the box, such as getting rid of guns? Or is that too far outside the box?"

@Strangerland

I won't deny that your proposal, as old as it is, is one possible solution, but how long are we all going to have to wait until the day when the U.S. gun laws do change? We're probably going to be waiting for a very, very long time before that day arrives, so, yeah, you're still thinking inside of the box because 5, 10, 20 or 40 years from now you'll still be presenting the same idea on here. Regardless of how good or bad your proposal is, honestly, how much longer do you think it's going to take before your idea is implemented, if ever? Judging by the number, frequency and slaughter of all the school shootings combined over the past 30 years, probably not any time soon. Even Obama, the POTUS, has been stumped and can't change anything while basically proposing the same ideas that you are.

Something more practical needs to be done now, not in the distant future depending on how long it takes for new U.S. laws to be implemented and constitutional amendments to take place. These school shootings are an immediate problem (and have been over the past 30 years) and need to be dealt with now, not in the distant future.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There are guns in America, that's a given, and they are not going away any time soon, if ever. There are people in America who have demonstrated the capability to go in to a school and start shooting. Sad, but none the less, true. Given these realities not having some sort of contingency plan for this type of situation is irresponsible.

My state has the lowest firearm death rate in the United States and comes in at number six when it comes to restrictive firearm laws. We have never had a mass shooting in any of our schools and the last mass shooting was a case of workplace violence that happened in 1999. For many people here mass shootings are something that happen somewhere else, not here. They feel that way because that has been their experience.

Yet every school in my state conducts active shooter drills. All teachers in the state are required to receive special training in proper protocol and procedure and all students receive instructions on what they need to do in such a situation and practice the procedures in class. Most schools have a permanent police resource officer on campus, in my county every school does.

It is not about instilling fear in the kids, it's all about giving them a sense of empowerment and the skills to participate in their own safe keeping. There is no magic wand to wave and make all the bad stuff in life go away and wish as hard as we might these kind of risks will continue to threaten us and influence our lives. How we address these risks will determine how safe we really are and conducting school safety drills, active shooter or not, will invariably produce a better outcome than doing nothing.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

As a non american I actually dont think its a bad idea. It wouldnt make sense in other countries but in a place like the us where kids are aware that their dad, granddad and uncle tommie have a couple of guns each it sounds pretty normal.

Plus this 'gun awareness' can be useful outside school too, even at home where mum, dad or their bro are also potential 'active shooters'.

The saddest thing about all this is that it actually makes a lot of sense.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The only 'drills' that should ever be practiced at school, work places and even home are for emergencies depending on your area such as fires, flooding, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like. Terrorism of any sort inside of the USA should be the last thing that children should ever have to deal with.

I find it odd that the USA spends so much money in other countries trying to stop wars, killing, maiming and suffering and the parallels between aboard and at home are so similar but yet no one in the USA is ever willing to realize it.

Clearly the whole world looking at the USA and shaking their collective heads in disgust is NEVER going to have any effect. Maybe the world should invade the USA, capture the NRA, the right wingers, gang bangers and other gun nutters and force a new government upon them that blocks civilians from pretty much owning guns and automatic weapons. I wonder if that would make the world a safer place? ;)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I can only say that I am glad I live in a country where guns are prohibited.

11 ( +11 / -1 )

How sad that in the U.S. this is somehow considered 'normal' for a kid to do.

9 ( +9 / -1 )

What about mental health? Good point for expanding Medicaid AND gun control. Will work well together.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Good joke, thanks for making my day

Call it a joke if you want, but in my day there was no ridiculous crap that is going on today like debates over men using the ladies restroom and mass killings in small towns

Many wanted to get rid of the "base" which is what the country was founded on like "in God we trust" but failed to come up with something better

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bass4funk: "That would be a difference of opinion"

Nope. Fact, plain and simple. Something that can be measured and that only a stupid person would deny, like someone who might own 24 guns, for example. Only a complete moron thinks you need even ONE; just ask the parents of the kid who shot herself the other day, or the thousands upon tens of thousands of parents or children, brothers, sisters, etc. who lose their loved ones every year (yes, EVERY year), because they 'need guns'.

, "I think the exact opposite"

Like I said a few moments ago...

"...especially when I see Europe being hit by radical Islamists, let them try that here on a massive scale."

There were still guns on 9/11. Obviously didn't help much. Nor do they help in school shootings. Arming people in the school wouldn't help one bit, either; it'd just be more death. But what do you care, right? You guys care more about the guns than the lives, and that's all there is to it. Proof of that is in the fact that you would kill people, not to protect yourself, but to 'protect the guns'. Don't pretend you care about lives.

serendipitous: "How sad that in the U.S. this is somehow considered 'normal' for a kid to do."

No kidding, and about as effective as the nuclear blast training they used to have would been if there was a blast. "Hide under your desks and keep quiet!" That worked well for the kids at Columbine, didn't it? But nah... why eliminate the actual problem if it means people like some of the posters here can keep a few dozen guns, right?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Gokai, your not 100% right, there are guns in japan but these are tightly regulated, and in the UK we have plenty of guns, yet again they are very tightly regulated, there restrictions on which caliber of rifle you can have, but you need to have a good reason for having it, and just saying "i want one" is not good enough you need to have proof/evidance for that caliber, and what your going to use it for/on, we have inspection of our equipment, where its stored, (all in good strong solid metal cabinets, with good locks) any infringement leads to peoples licenses being revoked/terminated or for slightly more serious infringements you got to prison for the minimum of 7 years. also the police look into you medical background and police history. some years ago, me and my son went to an authorised shooting range in the USA, we talked to the instructors for some time about our licences and laws they could not believe how stick it is, we told them that every gun on their range in the UK would have landed them 7 years in the nick as they were all illegal, and they are all prohibited. so yes you can have gun in society, but they have got to be highly regulated, and backed up with strong deterrents and possible imprisonment.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It just doesn't seem like lockdowns and fire drills are going to cut it and some serious thinking outside of the box.

You mean like comprehensive gun control laws that sharply curtail the ease with which one can acquire a firearm in the United States? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

This article makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach. That members of the gun lobby or the NRA don't feel the least bit unnerved or I'll at ease that we have effectively turned our schools into active combat zones is heartbreaking.

I feel nothing but anger at folks who still keep trotting out their illiterate and historically ignorant interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to justify their complete and utter surrender to jibbering-in-the-trees monkey fear of criminals, tyrannical government, or drivers/shoppers/pedestrians/anyone who looks at them in any way the least objectionable.

Their infantile fear has all but destroyed childhood in America and replaced it with . . . this "active shooter" abomination.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Within a few seconds, the pupils had thrown their cards on the ground, shut the doors to the classroom, covered the windows with magnetic blackboards, run to their desks and slid them over to the doors creating a barricade so no-one could enter or leave the classroom. They drew the curtains to the balcony windows and hid near the shelves, behind their chairs.

That is a foreign teacher's observation of an intruder alert drill at a Japanese elementary school. In the wake of the Ikeda Elementary School massacre, which left 8 students dead an another 21 injured, Japanese officials perceived a need and addressed it with training, intruder drills and equipping most, if not all, schools with anti-intruder devices (sasumata).

This teacher reported that the drill was very realistic and she was concerned that such a frightening experience would a negative effect on the 7 and 8 year old kids in her class, she went on to question if these realistic drills could actually do more harm than good. But she went on to report that the students preformed their duties in an orderly manner and didn't seem frightened or disturbed by the situation. Maybe that is because they were prepared and knew what they were supposed to do.

From my observations I would say that the Japanese are some of the most preparedness minded people on Earth. So even in a society with such an enviable low crime rate this type of preparedness is deemed appropriate and necessary, the chances of a repeat of the tragedy in Osaka are very slim because of that mindset.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Many wanted to get rid of the "base" which is what the country was founded on like "in God we trust" No, it was founded on exploiting the American Indians (and Trump wants to do this more with his wall) and slavery. Too many Christians are evil opportunists. Look at people like Ted Haggard and Scott Douglas Lively- among many others. There are also the PP shooters doing the work of Jesus and Bundies who consider themselves good Christian Americans (who were) trying to free the American land from the American government using their toy guns (and they are toys compared to the resources the authorities have). A lot of this gun nonsense just sounds like big boys and their toys.

Also, I'm still amazed at....

If liberals would back out and STAY out of everyone else's lives and get rid of these gun free zones

Hard core conservatives here blasting gun free zones..yet they choose to live in a big one (Japan). It's a very big joke. The posters who think no gun no life...why did you come to Japan in the first place which is one big gun free bubble? What were you thinking?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Guns good. Transgender toilets bad. Seriously. Fire drills I get. Earthquake drills I get. But shooting drills? Is this in the middle of a conflict zone?

1 ( +4 / -4 )

@Brian Whehay I know what you mean. I was thinking of hand guns that do a lot of killing in the US. Here, there is a very limited ownership of rifles. These are owned by farmers who need to protect themselves from bears or wild boars. Of course, yakuza have illegal hand guns, but they know better than to use them against civilians. Mainly they use them to shoot out windows of rival gangs headquarters.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Funny, violence, and gun violence, have both been trending downward for decades. The only thing which has increased is the media pumping money out of bloody stories "if it bleeds, it leads." Mass killers don't target schools because they hate children, the target them because the can count on Fox, BBC, CNN, and the like to post their names, stories, and photos around the world. Since 1960, violent crime in America (including shootings) has decreased more than one-third. However, news stories reporting violent crimes had increased will over 100% during the same period. America now is safer than it has ever been, despite the horror stories.

How many people and guns are in America? 300 million and 200 million. How many people are killed each year in America by guns? If you subtract suicides, self defense, and police shootings, you end up with about ten thousand, or about one-fourth as many as killed in car accidents. Tobacco causes almost 50 times as many preventable deaths as guns, alcohol kills 6 times as many, drug overdoses cause 5 times as many deaths.

America has many issues relating to health and premature death, but firearms are low on the list compared to other issues.

The posters who think no gun no life...why did you come to Japan in the first place which is one big gun free bubble? What were you thinking?

The total number of gun deaths in America is more than one-third less than the annual number of suicides in Japan, despite Japan having half as many people. What is wrong with Japan when suicide is the number one cause of death of people between 25 and 50? And Japan is not a "gun free bubble", more than 250,000 Japanese own guns; you might ask these Japanese why they own guns, and why they don't give them up.

As for America, people own guns because in America people are nominally equal, and the government does not have the right to reserve special rights for itself. Every person in America is a citizen, not a subject, and as a citizen, they are the legal equal to any police officer, soldier, or politician. In a free society were people are equal, all have the same rights.

Here is the second amendment as written:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most people mistakenly think that this quote means that only the militia is to be armed, or that only people in a militia are allowed to be armed. This is not the case. Who regulates the militia? The people regulate the militia, as well as the government. And the ultimate form of regulation is force. If only the militia or the government is armed, how can the people regulate either?

When you live in a free society, you have to accept the consequences of doing so. We allow people to drive, so we have to accept the 40,000 deaths and millions of injuries (and billions in costs) which driving causes. We allow people to smoke, so we accept the half million deaths, and millions of illnesses which go with it every year. We allow drinking, so we have to accept the 60 odd thousand killed each year. Banning motorcycles would save more lives than banning guns, banning alcohol and tobacco would save far more. No one needs to drink or smoke anymore than anyone needs to own a gun, right?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No one needs to drink or smoke anymore than anyone needs to own a gun, right?

Weren't you the poster deriding politicians as con men?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm not in favor of home-schooling, but if I was an American parent, I'd take my kids out of school.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

sangetsu03

Seems that the number of guns in the US is actually about 300 million now so, assuming not every man, woman and child in the US has one, this number means that so many have more than one.

And only 10,000 gun deaths a year you say, as though that isn't many! I'd say 27 people being killed every day by guns is a serious issue, even considering the US's large population.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No, it was founded on exploiting the American Indians (and Trump wants to do this more with his wall) and slavery. Too many Christians are evil opportunists.

Too many Christians are evil opportunists? How many have committed acts of murder on a giant scale with massive casualties of thousands of people over the las 15 years worldwide? What's the total number?

You have No proof that Trump ever said anything about wanting slavery and every country has exploited people of color everyone of them.

Doesn't change the fact that I feel better knowing that I do have some firearms in my house than NOT to have any, it has nothing to do with fear, actually has more to do with hunting, but at least I have the right to own a firearm and as a NRA supporter that makes me want to support the Second amendment that much more.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Mass killers don't target schools because they hate children, the target them because the can count on Fox, BBC, CNN, and the like to post their names. Not true, they access freak sites on the Internet and are influenced by them. Names of criminals are always made public. Nothing new here. CNN is creating gun violence? Really?

Funny, violence, and gun violence, have both been trending downward for decades. Yes, and crime is going down in japan too with no guns.

How many have committed acts of murder on a giant scale with massive casualties of thousands of people over the las 15 years worldwide? Check Scott Douglas Lively in Zimbabwe. But even so look at how annoying they are in the USA. Islamic terrorism will probably never hit me. But Evangelicals annoy me and effect me politically. I'm glad they are not in Japan. Aren't you?

Japan is not a "gun free bubble", more than 250,000 Japanese own guns; you might ask these Japanese why they own guns, and why they don't give them up. I'm glad we both agree and believe in gun registration. If I loved hunting so much I would not want to give them up either. Registration works and Japan is proof. Do it in the USA. Not gun free Japan? Can you carry your gun in the middle of Tokyo like in the USA?

We allow people to drive, so we have to accept the 40,000 deaths And what's the point? Should we be able to have cars with no license, registration, and insurance as with guns (which would mean many more car-related deaths) or should gun owners be licensed and their guns registered and insured strictly like with cars (which would mean a plummet in gun crimes)? Car ownership is already going down. Cars will eventually drive themselves years on and they will be almost accident free. On the other hand new gun tech will mean more deadly guns with stuff like metal storm technology in a handgun and smart bullets. So as tech progresses cars get safer and guns get deadlier. Guns vs. cars is a very poor comparison.

suicides in Japan Suicide is not my business (nor is tobacco or drug ODs). However, indiscriminate gun possession in the USA is. When I go back home, for example, a place where I always go shopping had a shooting where three people died including the shooter. That's too close for me. There is also talk in the USA of the need to pay for expensive armed security in establishments such as movie theaters and pass the cost on to the customers. No thank you- gun owners should pay for their own enjoyment of carrying their guns 24/7 because I don't want to pay for the ransom for this over hyped right to bear arms. Really, it's hype and creates a false sense of security. Someone comes up to you and sucker shoots you like with Chris Kyle or four cops being killed in a Lakewood, Washington doughnut shop your gun will not save you. Registration has a much better chance of saving you because I have never heard of a common citizen being shot in Japan by a crazy person.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The total number of gun deaths in America is more than one-third less than the annual number of suicides in Japan, despite Japan having half as many people. What is wrong with Japan when suicide is the number one cause of death of people between 25 and 50?

I don't know where you are getting your misinformation. In 2013 the US had 33,636 firearm deaths. Japan had 27,283 suicides in the same year.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

https://www.tofugu.com/japan/suicide-in-japan/

I could not find data on the 25-50 age cohort. Some sources say suicide is the leading cause for males aged 20-44 but because the male suicide rate is much higher than the female suicide rate it is statistically impossible for suicide to be the leading cause of death for this cohort when both males and females are considered.

Overall suicide is number seven as a cause of death in Japan.

Comparisons of this type are inherently silly. Want to change the ranking of suicide? Kill off more people in a different way such as drug overdoses or traffic accidents. For example the US traffic accident death rate per 100,000 people per year is roughly 10. In Japan it is roughly 3.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Doesn't change the fact that I feel better knowing that I do have some firearms in my house than NOT to have any In Japan?

every country has exploited people of color everyone of them. Trump wants to do more of it with his wall.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Better safe than sorry. It's all love, peace, and everybody can use any toilet they associate with regardless of what's downstairs, till someone brings out a gun.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I really wish you libs would push for voter ID registration the same way you guys push for gun registration. But there are 30 cases of voter fraud out of 1 billion accumulative votes. There are no credible reports of voter fraud. But lots of reports of people getting shot. Can't compare.

Ok, so realistically 2 people. No, all those christian slave owners. Trump (who is a Christian) wants to displace more Indians. This shows there are many bad Christians. Also, there is the BTK Killer.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Mass killers don't target schools because they hate children, the target them because the can count on Fox, BBC, CNN, and the like to post their names, stories, and photos around the world.

Also because every school now is much more security-minded than they’ve ever been, and because most states and the federal government requires it, The intensity of the security is also very much dependent upon what experiences the school has had. You’re not going to find metal detectors in a school that has not experienced any violence or any times of students’ trying to bring weapons into the school.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Welcome to the USA in the 21st century.

Yeah . . . & STILL everyone wants to go. Go US Embassy any weekday. Masses & masses of lines for the Visa. Look at Mex. the central & south americans . . . . they want to come. Everybody wants to "come" to america.

America has many issues relating to health and premature death, but firearms are low on the list compared to other issues.

If you live in a nice neighborhood, the gun thing ain't too big of an issue. Look at the barrios / ghettos. Its a vicious cycle of violence, drugs, alcohol, gangs etc. They need to wear the shoe.

Cops must defend themselves from "thugs." I like what Sanders said - "police dept. should reflect the communities they're representing." . .. . . .. Yeah- if "some" of those applicants can PASS a polygraph / background check. When they take a "drug test" they're prob likely to burn a whole through the plastic cup, BEFORE it gets to lab.

Saw it dozens of times in both military / private sector.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm not in favor of home-schooling, but if I was an American parent, I'd take my kids out of school.

If I was an American parent I'd take my kids out of America!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

But there are 30 cases of voter fraud out of 1 billion accumulative votes. There are no credible reports of voter fraud. But lots of reports of people getting shot.

So I say, we do both, then that covers everything and we all can be happy, liberals get what they want and conservatives get what they want-harmony.

Trump (who is a Christian) wants to displace more Indians. This shows there are many bad Christians.

Sometimes you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

If I was an American parent I'd take my kids out of America!

Luckily, most parents wouldn't do something that naive. It's not every school, not even most schools that have this problem. Never give in to fear.

If you live in a nice neighborhood, the gun thing ain't too big of an issue. Look at the barrios / ghettos. Its a vicious cycle of violence, drugs, alcohol, gangs etc. They need to wear the shoe.

Without a doubt. Go to Inglewood, Compton, Hancock Park, Watts, Downy, Hawaiian Gardens, you would have to be insane teaching in the school districts out there and not have a firearm on you or at the very least security.

Cops must defend themselves from "thugs.

Of course, at the end of the day, they have families they want to go home to as well. They don't want to be a victim and shouldn't.

" I like what Sanders said - "police dept. should reflect the communities they're representing." . .. . . .. Yeah- if "some" of those applicants can PASS a polygraph / background check. When they take a "drug test" they're prob likely to burn a whole through the plastic cup, BEFORE it gets to lab.

Saw it dozens of times in both military / private sector.

So that leaves only one other alternative and that is, you always need to be able to protect yourself, especially IF you live in violent cities.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

If we want to live in a country awash with guns, then school shootings and shooter drills are just things that come with it. Not really rocket science.

Maybe safe rooms are good ideas. You could build them in to new construction. Or even multiple larger safe rooms that groups of students can try to make it to.

I'd prefer that to putting a gun in the hands of every teacher in America. More will probably die from accidents, and apparently the only qualification needed to lead an urban combat situation is that the teacher is the oldest person in the room. They will need training and we might want to weed out the ones who can't pass minimum standards for safety like we do with flight attendants.

Other ideas might be classroom items that can double as shields and panic buttons in every room. Add bulletproof glass on door windows and the ability to bar the door.

As for removing gun free zones, I hear gun supporters say schools are targeted because they are gun free zones, but I've never actually heard a shooter say it. What worries me is that people could bring their own guns to the school and now we have a problem with identifying who is a threat and who isn't. Add guns in every classroom with confusion and things could become unworkable pretty quickly.

What would make things easier is if gun supporters could decide amongst themselves what restrictions they will allow and which they will not. I know they often point to mental health but they also do things like barring doctors from asking a patient if they have a gun in the house, so that tells me we would have to approach it within the context of what they would agree to. If they aren't willing to agree to much of anything then maybe those resources would be better used elsewhere, like fortifying the classrooms.

What sucks for me is that I don't have kids but a still have to pay for these things through my property taxes. Feels a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

School heroin use takes more lives monthly compared to any year of shootings in school.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Only a complete moron thinks you need even ONE; just ask the parents of the kid who shot herself the other day, or the thousands upon tens of thousands of parents or children, brothers, sisters, etc. who lose their loved ones every year (yes, EVERY year), because they 'need guns'.

What is your point about needs Smith? That the only things people should own or use are "needs"? Can you honestly say that you live your life on the very basic of needs? If you don't can you honestly say that the things that you own that are not needs have not already or will eventually cause a person to lose their life, either from the manufacturing/assembling of the product to harvest of the raw materials to make the product in the first place to even the transportation of the product to the shelf.

88,000 people die every single year from Alcohol in the USA. More people die from Alcohol on a per capita basis in basically every developed nation than firearms kill people(Suicide, accidents, and homicides) on a per capita basis in the USA.

So what?

Nor do they help in school shootings. Arming people in the school wouldn't help one bit, either; it'd just be more death.

If you seriously believe that Smith then why bother to call law enforcement when you see someone in civilian clothing with a firearm? Especially if you see them on school grounds. Why even bother to call law enforcement then if you honestly believe that?

You guys care more about the guns than the lives, and that's all there is to it.

So what if people do Smith? In order for anything to be legal you have to accept that a product or service will eventually result in someone dying because of it.

If the only acceptable cost to own a product, or use a service or engage in a behavior is zero deaths and or injuries then we are all going to live very boring lives.

Do you really blame people for saying that if a product in general is owned by 32-50% of the adult population purely for recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying annually because of it that they find that to be an acceptable cost? Do you really blame people for saying that?

Proof of that is in the fact that you would kill people, not to protect yourself, but to 'protect the guns'

Because he feels that in the event that the government becomes tyrannical that the civilian population will need firearms in order to fight back.

Don't pretend you care about lives.

You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

Get over yourself. You do not care about lives either.

I know they often point to mental health but they also do things like barring doctors from asking a patient if they have a gun in the house

@SuperLib - Yeah that isn't true. Doctors can ask if the patient has a gun in the house, what they can't do is badger the patient into revealing that information. See the reason the law came about is because of a Florida doctor that was treating a patient that had nothing to do with gun shot wounds or injury caused by a firearm and when the family stated they were not going to answer that question for privacy reasons the doctor basically went to them and said he wasn't going to provide anymore future medical services after the current round of treatment for refusing to answer a question that had nothing to do with the current treatment he was providing. Now in the doctor's defense he did say that he did this as well with other things, most notably a swimming pool, that if people didn't answer such questions, like during a routine physical or for vaccinations, he would stop providing medical services to them.

So this law doesn't prevent them from asking the question it just prevents them for badgering or forcing the patients to provide information that is not relevant to the treatment they are receiving in order to further receive future medical care.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'll give my guns but not before the government gives up theirs first. They can keep the nukes though.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Noliving: Yeah that isn't true. Doctors can ask if the patient has a gun in the house, what they can't do is badger the patient into revealing that information. See the reason the law came about is because of a Florida doctor that was treating a patient that had nothing to do with gun shot wounds or injury caused by a firearm

You're ignoring the larger point, but I'll focus on this if that's what you're interested in.

From what I've read about Florida, the case involved a pediatrician who asks new patients if they own a firearm. To him it's a health and safety issue. If they do, then he offers advice on how to keep kids safe from gun accidents. He doesn't lobby for or against guns. The courts ruled that that was an invasion of privacy unless the doctor feels the person is a danger to himself or others. That narrowed the scope on what doctors were allowed to consider as a health and safety issue.

But the point is that gun supporters would help if they would let us know what kind of restrictions, if any, we could place on gun ownership.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'll give my guns but not before the government gives up theirs first. Are you in Japan?

So I say, we do both, then that covers everything and we all can be happy, liberals get what they want and conservatives get what they want-harmony OK, then gun registration Japanese style. Deal

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The intensity of the security is also very much dependent upon what experiences the school has had. You’re not going to find metal detectors in a school that has not experienced any violence or any times of students’ trying to bring weapons into the school.

@LIzz,

That is not the case in my state. We have never had a mass shooting in any of our schools yet every school here conducts active shooter drills. Ask any student here about school security and they will tell you its pretty intense. Our Department of Education studies incidents in other states and applies what it learns to our unique situation. We don't have many metal detectors in our schools because after careful consideration it was determined that this approach wouldn't have much of a benefit. Instead of relying on hardware our schools focus on what they call "heartware", which is a program of instilling a sense of honor, dignity and respect within our school communities. It works for us and this approach is validated by strong research conducted by the the likes of the Secret Service, ATF and the US Department of Education which has shown this to be the best approach to a safe school environment.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You're ignoring the larger point,

For good reason SuperLib, you were using incorrect information as a way to buttress the larger point. You would do the same.

But the point is that gun supporters would help if they would let us know what kind of restrictions, if any, we could place on gun ownership.

Using incorrect information isn't the best way to make that point.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Noloving: Using incorrect information isn't the best way to make that point.

I understand. Thanks for your comments.

Would anyone here support raising taxes to pay for increased security in schools? Would gun owners accept new taxes on guns if the money went towards protecting schools and funding studies to learn more about gun violence?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

firearms were one of the principal rights bestowed to americans by the people who founded the country

if you disagree with the founding principals of your country, maybe you should leave

plenty of other countries around the world have extremely high firearm rates yet do not suffer from school shootings or other mass killings using firearms.

perhaps people should be looking at the root cause of the problem. why are so many people becoming unstable? maybe it's time to put a stop to sensationalist media, hyped up television news, fearmongering, etc? mentally unstable people crave the kind of attention, positive or negative, that mass media will shower them with if they kill dozens of children in a school.

maybe instead of wasting time trying to rid the country of one of its founding principals, the right to bear firearms, we should work more on making sure everyone has access to the help they need before they feel the urge to kill lots of people.

finally, let us also consider that despite Japan having few firearms, it still has relatively frequent mass murders using other weapons, and the suicide rate is still horrendous. banning trains and knives is not going to fix the problem in japan. these incidents are a clear indicator of poor mental health of the nation.

if you still can't be convinced that obeying the constitution is a good idea, let's just keep in mind that the same document outlines your rights to have a dissenting opinion, but not to infringe the constitutional rights of others. so again, if you don't agree with the founding document of your nation, maybe you should move somewhere that fits your ideals better.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

firearms were one of the principal rights bestowed to americans by the people who founded the country

if you disagree with the founding principals of your country, maybe you should leave

BINGO!

plenty of other countries around the world have extremely high firearm rates yet do not suffer from school shootings or other mass killings using firearms.

perhaps people should be looking at the root cause of the problem. why are so many people becoming unstable? maybe it's time to put a stop to sensationalist media, hyped up television news, fearmongering, etc? mentally unstable people crave the kind of attention, positive or negative, that mass media will shower them with if they kill dozens of children in a school.

maybe instead of wasting time trying to rid the country of one of its founding principals, the right to bear firearms, we should work more on making sure everyone has access to the help they need before they feel the urge to kill lots of people.

finally, let us also consider that despite Japan having few firearms, it still has relatively frequent mass murders using other weapons, and the suicide rate is still horrendous. banning trains and knives is not going to fix the problem in japan. these incidents are a clear indicator of poor mental health of the nation.

if you still can't be convinced that obeying the constitution is a good idea, let's just keep in mind that the same document outlines your rights to have a dissenting opinion, but not to infringe the constitutional rights of others. so again, if you don't agree with the founding document of your nation, maybe you should move somewhere that fits your ideals better.

Right on point! 100% agreed!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Mass killers don't target schools because they hate children, the target them because the can count on Fox, BBC, CNN, and the like to post their names, stories, and photos around the world.

Well that should make the parents of kids shot at school feel better.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The very last thing Americans should ever consider is changing any law, regulation or limit on any firearm to anyone who may wish to own, use or collect. In fact, the Constitution makes all regulation ILLEGAL!

The Founding Fathers entombed in the Second Amendment the right to kill, at will, and then pretend the victim was at fault for being too much of a baby to not carry a firearm.

That's called FREEDOM and that's what millions of Americans have died for and NO ONE has any RIGHT to ever think of changing that fact. That's why the NRA is so popular and worshiped only second to GOD!

The parents and cry babies who are always complaining should just get their own gun and shoot anyone they feel is a threat just like Zimmerman did in Florida not too long ago.

That's called DEFENSE of FREEDOM!

AMERICA, #1 in Mass Slaughter and the Constitution Guarantees that FOREVER and EVER!

(the preceeding is available for reproduction on tombstones and in all public and government facilities, you're welcome.)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

if you still can't be convinced that obeying the constitution is a good idea, let's just keep in mind that the same document outlines your rights to have a dissenting opinion, but not to infringe the constitutional rights of others.

It also outlines the rules behind legal slavery, doesn't it? Should that be obeyed as well?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I love how all these leftists think that only licensed gun owners own guns. Do you all honestly think that gun control prevents criminals from obtaining firearms? No. It only removes guns from people who would need to defend themselves.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Do you all honestly think that gun control prevents criminals from obtaining firearms? No. It only removes guns from people who would need to defend themselves.

Look at absolute numbers. Countries that have bans on guns have significantly lower numbers of deaths by gun. So your argument above is a straw man fallacy. No one is saying it's impossible to get a gun if they are illegal, but what we are saying is that more criminals will have guns when they are legal. Is that what you want? More criminals with guns?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

perhaps people should be looking at the root cause of the problem. why are so many people becoming unstable?

You think many people are becoming unstable? Sounds like a great argument for tighter gun control laws!

maybe instead of wasting time trying to rid the country of one of its founding principals, the right to bear firearms,

Forgetting the part about the "well regulated militia. Also forgetting our founding principals prohibited women from voting and allowed for slavery. Also forgetting that back 250 years ago, there were no phones to call for help, no police to call for assistance, and no grocery store- people HAD to hunt for food.

we should work more on making sure everyone has access to the help they need before they feel the urge to kill lots of people

Yes, better access to mental healthcare sounds better all around- not just with regards to gun control. Too bad conservatives are dead set against public healthcare.

so again, if you don't agree with the founding document of your nation, maybe you should move somewhere that fits your ideals better

Just no. Comment away on America, certainly your right, but I find it frankly insulting that you tell Americans that "if Americans don't like it, they can leave." Its not that simple. People have jobs and responsibilities. Let's also not forget that there is indeed a lot of violence is poor parts of the US. Are you suggesting people from these areas can just up and leave at any time? Americans have the right to change laws along with the times, this is why our Constitution has 27 Amendments up from the original 10 in the BOR.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

firearms were one of the principal rights bestowed to americans by the people who founded the country too bad American Indians didn't have them earlier on. Too bad Africans didn't have them when they were kidnapped by slave merchants. You made a good point.

if you disagree with the founding principals of your country, maybe you should leave That's funny since so many hardcore 2A people did come to Japan and left their guns behind. What in the world is up with that.

it still has relatively frequent mass murders Samuri swords? If I were that much of a scared American I would no way come to Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let's also not forget that there is indeed a lot of violence is poor parts of the US. Are you suggesting people from these areas can just up and leave at any time?

But you don't see public school shootings in urban areas predominately because of the increased physical barriers (armed security guards, metal detectors, and surveillance cameras).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hey, here's this:

http://www.foxnews.com/

Two dead and injured in shooting Houston, TX shooting spree. I thought guns saved lives? Doesn't seem to be the case in gun happy Texas.

Florida: Police officers wound suspect in shootout.

Georgia: Police officer hospitalized after being shot in head. Suspect apprehended.

"Guns are Great!" - Tony the Tiger

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But you don't see public school shootings in urban areas predominately because of the increased physical barriers (armed security guards, metal detectors, and surveillance cameras).

You don't? Sandyhook wasn't urban? Columbine wasn't urban?

Me thinks you are speaking without fact checking.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Do you all honestly think that gun control prevents criminals from obtaining firearms?

Like these animals . . . .shooting at each other in a peaceful cemetery on Memorial Day weekend.

http://ktla.com/2016/05/29/2-shot-in-santa-ana-cemetery-after-fight-breaks-out-at-grave-site/

The Hillary supporters (thugs) have hit a new low.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The Hillary supporters (thugs) have hit a new low.

I am not a HRC fan, and there is nothing in the article to suggest these two are either. Can't really see your point.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am not a HRC fan, and there is nothing in the article to suggest these two are either. Can't really see your point.

Oh you're not from California. Santa Ana is Orange County's ghetto. Dominant hispanic community (some illegals). Its a real rock n' roll city. HRC fans no doubt . . . did you not see the chaos in Costa Mesa @ the Trump rally? Santa Ana is Near Costa Mesa. Do the math.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well that should make the parents of kids shot at school feel better.

So what if it doesn't make them feel better? Not everything in this discussion or on any other discussion of any other topic should have to pass a "test" of does it make the relatives and friends of the victim feel better. Quite frankly there is probably a lot of truth to the statement that the people who do mass killings or attempt to do mass killings against elementary children in public are not doing it out of a hate for elementary children but rather for media attention that it brings.

but what we are saying is that more criminals will have guns when they are legal. Is that what you want? More criminals with guns?

Which now gets to the question of balance.

If you allow cars more criminals will use cars in crimes and will use them to evade law enforcement. If you allow metal knives then more crimes will be committed metal knives, if you allow Alcohol then more people will commit crimes while intoxicated. If you allow computers then more computer/information crimes will be committed.

Is that what you want Stranger? More criminals using cars to aid them in crimes, or using knives to commit crimes or people getting intoxicated and committing crimes?

The answer of course is no, so again we come to the question of balance.

Do we believe that the benefits brought by a metal knife out weigh the additional crimes committed by metal knives when they are legal and could easily be replaced by plastic knives.

Do we believe that the benefits of private car ownership out weigh all the additional crimes that are committed and aided by cars when they are legal when they could be replaced by public transportation.

Do we believe that the benefits of recreational Alcohol intoxication outweigh all crimes that are committed by intoxicated people when all they would have to do is find a new hobby or drink.

Sandyhook wasn't urban? Columbine wasn't urban?

This may come as a surprise to you Stranger but NewTown, just over 27-28k in population, is considered a rural city.

Columbine is considered suburban. I think his point is that school shooting are not really an urban thing they are more of a rural thing, and for the most part he is correct. Most school shootings do not take place within schools that are in a city but in the suburbs and rural parts of the nation.

Two dead and injured in shooting Houston, TX shooting spree. I thought guns saved lives? Doesn't seem to be the case in gun happy Texas.

They do, if it wasn't for law enforcement with firearms the death toll could very well be higher, especially when the attackers are randomly attacking people at will. Do you disagree that what happened today in Houston that if it wasn't for the firearms used by law enforcement the death toll most likely would have been higher today?

If it wasn't for law enforcement guns at the Wisconsin prom event a few weeks ago the death toll probably would have been higher, same with the anti-Muslim rally in at a high school a few months ago.

The idea that guns can never ever save innocent life is just BS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not everything in this discussion or on any other discussion of any other topic should have to pass a "test" of does it make the relatives and friends of the victim feel better.

I see. So the pro-gun stance is that the feelings of parents of kids murdered by guns don't matter. Got it.

If you allow cars more criminals will use cars in crimes and will use them to evade law enforcement. If you allow metal knives then more crimes will be committed metal knives, if you allow Alcohol then more people will commit crimes while intoxicated. If you allow computers then more computer/information crimes will be committed.

If you allow cars, society doesn't collapse. If you allow knives, people can cook. If you allow alcohol, people will enjoy themselves. if you allow computers, society doesn't collapse.

If you allow guns, children die. Mothers die. Fathers die. Grandparents die. Friends die.

If you don't allow guns, society collapses. If you don't allow knives, people cannot cook. If you don't allow alcohol, people won't be able to drink. If you don't allow computers, society collapses.

If you don't allow guns, less people die.

Can we drop this ridiculous attempt at comparing guns to things that aren't built to kill? No one is stupid enough to think they are an equivalent, it's just an attempt by the gun lovers to deflect from the fact that guns have no positive effect on society. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise, or make your self look stupid, by putting forth stupid arguments.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I would have a person play the shooter, but with a back up person to stop the action to explain some possibilities for the kids. Questions like when is hiding the best option? When is running away the best option, and where to? I might with older kids consider if you are behind the shooter is that a possible attack plan that might give everyone a better chance, perhaps at high school level.

This a lot like training for war. You want your actions to go on automatic and not be panicking and freezing, because you life might well depend on it. Sure it is sad this is necessary training. But if you give the children some ideas of what perhaps they can , or cannot do, then more may survive when it happens. That is what we are training them for. I can assure you that kids in street gang neighborhoods are already knowledgeable about avoiding getting hit by bullets. But kids in more peaceful areas are totally unready.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not buying that argument. I think from my experience and from what I've witnessed in crime ridden cities, you are far better off with a firearm than without it, without one, you are just asking for it. A lot of lives were saved, including my fathers in a break-in attempt in his house in 1979, if my father wasn't armed, he wouldn't be here today and since then, I would always support the right to own a firearm, it's definitely a potential lifesaver, especially if you live in an area infested with violence and you don't have the option of relocating.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Sangetsu,

Funny, violence, and gun violence, have both been trending downward for decades.

There isn't a damned thing funny about any of this. Yes, gun violence involving 3 or fewer victims have been on the decline for years. But mass shootings that involve four or more victims in which the primary intent was mass murder experienced a dramatic rise over the past 8 years; the rate more than doubled.

No, I don't think there's anything funny about 20 6-year-olds getting butchered in their own classroom because Adam Lanza's mother was just one of millions of Americans who paradoxically treat guns as both a potent cure-all for crime and a breezy, recreational toy for fun and amusement.

If gun advocates want fellow Americans to believe that guns are the sacrosanct defender of civilians from government tyranny, then they need to start acting like it by getting behind the kind of controlled sale, registration, and mandatory minimal training that owning something capable of snuffing out a life in a split second requires -- no, demands.

Either guns are toys and not worthy of 2nd amendment protections, or they are serious tools and need to be treated wi commensurate seriousness. Firearms are either toys or they are not. No more of this Mickey Mouse, on-the-fence, wanting to have your cake and eat it bullshit. Not when our children are having to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic in a climate that says, "Sorry, kids, but the grown-ups have no way to really protect you all from dying in your chairs in a moment of insane violence."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Not buying that argument. I think from my experience and from what I've witnessed in crime ridden cities, you are far better off with a firearm than without it Yes, just ask Michael Dunn about that

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass: A lot of lives were saved, including my fathers in a break-in attempt in his house in 1979, if my father wasn't armed, he wouldn't be here today

I have 3 friends whose fathers were killed by toddlers in gun accidents. This is after one of them mistook his wife for an intruder and shot her. I feel the need to sometimes share these stories with people.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@jameburk, in the constitution it does not say firearms it says arms, so to arm your self with a arm could mean a plank of wood with a main in it or a sharp object, a spear? may be, it does not actually say firearms. http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf it on page 12 amendment 2, A lot of Americans have a thought of its ok to have a fully automatic assault rifle, there not designed for hunting dears or wild life, there not brilliant at accuracy there designed for front line troops of attacking the enemy, so why on gods earth should they be allowed to general public??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have 3 friends whose fathers were killed by toddlers in gun accidents. This is after one of them mistook his wife for an intruder and shot her.

Your four anecdotes beat Bass' single anecdote by three points. You win!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I have 3 friends whose fathers were killed by toddlers in gun accidents. This is after one of them mistook his wife for an intruder and shot her. I feel the need to sometimes share these stories with people.

Super, my point is, my father is alive because he took out 3 people, 2 died and 1 survived, you can certainly make the opposite argument that a gun destroyed someone's life, but for me, I'm thankful everyday that my dad is still with us and that's all I care about, I can't speak for someone else's tragedy because I didn't personally experience something that horrific, that doesn't mean I don't have empathy for a people that go through that kind of devastation. I most certainly do. However, I will always be on the side for and support people that want to use a firearm.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Super, my point is, my father is alive because he took out 3 people, 2 died and 1 survived So? My dad took out five guys attacking him at the same time and they all had AR-15s. My dad has a farm in Kansas and he was trapped in his barn. They had him surrounded and with his Milkor MGL he took them all out. 2A rules and my dad is the best. He makes George Zimmerman look like Tinkerbell. My dad is the best and it beats all other stories of pro 2A stories on this board.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Super, my point is, my father is alive because he took out 3 people, 2 died and 1 survived

The toddlers took out 17 innocent people before accidentally turning on their fathers. In all the years we've been debating guns, I guess I never told you that. Not your fault.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's a sad state of affairs in the US when schools must have drills so kids know how to deal with such traumatic situations.

Mass shootings have become so common in the US that Americans have become desensitized to it along with all the other violence they eagerly consume in the media.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I see. So the pro-gun stance is that the feelings of parents of kids murdered by guns don't matter. Got it.

That is quite a leap Stranger, I never said that the feelings don't matter entirely. I'm saying that having a test that every single statement or comment or opinion on every single topic that involves people being injured or killed that has to make the family and friends of those impacted feel better doesn't help the conversation nor move it forward a single inch nor does it help make better policies/laws. If anything it does the complete opposite.

If you allow cars, society doesn't collapse. If you allow knives, people can cook. If you allow alcohol, people will enjoy themselves. if you allow computers, society doesn't collapse.

And allowing firearms a society doesn't collapse either. Do you honestly think a country like the USA where the economy is growing, unemployment rate is going down, crime is going down, and the population is growing is a sign that the USA collapsing?

You can cook using non metal knives Stranger and if even if you couldn't cook you can eat a lot of foods raw and survive. Society didn't collapse before the invention of electrical computers.

If you allow guns, children die. Mothers die. Fathers die. Grandparents die. Friends die.

That is true with every single product, if you allow Alcohol children will die, Mothers will die, Fathers will die, grandparents will die, friends will die. If you allow cars people and animals will die.

Just say it Stranger, you believe that their deaths are an acceptable cost so that you can enjoy Alcohol and so you can have the freedom to not have to use public transportation. God forbid anyone ever say the samething about any other product that kills less than Alcohol, especially if that product was originally designed to kill but is overwhelming used for non-malicious reasons.

If you don't allow knives, people cannot cook.

You can cook food just fine using non-metallic knives. Heck at the very basic definition of cooking you don't even need a knife of any type. You just need a heat source.

Can we drop this ridiculous attempt at comparing guns to things that aren't built to kill?

It is not a ridiculous attempt at all. If your goal is to save lives then it is irrelevant if a product is designed to kill or not because a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause.

No one is stupid enough to think they are an equivalent

Yes they are, they are both(Alcohol and guns) overwhelmingly used for non-malicious reasons. Firearms especially. They both are primarily used in civilian hands for recreation. They both result in premature deaths, Alcohol kills more than firearms do. If you claim that your primary motivation to get rid of guns is to save lives then you will have no problem explaining how your distinction will have a practical impact on reducing premature deaths.

Do you honestly think that by claiming something is not designed to kill that that point by itself will cause that said product to begin killing less people either today or tomorrow because of it? If I was to to go to you and say Alcohol is not designed to kill do you honestly think that on a practical level starting today or tomorrow that Alcohol will begin to kill less people because of it? Or that it makes the deaths caused by Alcohol any less premature?

If the answer is no then it would be a fair statement to say that the distinction has zero practical benefits to the goal of saving lives and that it is really nothing more than a euphemism for saying I believe that the premature deaths caused by such things are an acceptable cost so that I own an enjoy those said products, correct?

it's just an attempt by the gun lovers to deflect from the fact that guns have no positive effect on society.

The same benefits that people get from recreational Alcohol consumption are the same benefits people get when using a firearm for recreation at a range or for the most part any recreation that people do. If you honestly believe that they have zero positive effect on society then you believe that the gun ranges that Japanese tourists go to in Guam and Hawaii have zero positive impact on society, really? You believe that the Minnesota High school clay target shooting league has zero positive effects on the people that participate in it. You believe that Harvard University Target shooting team that competes competitively has zero positive impacts. How about paintball and air-soft leagues, they have zero positive impacts?

Don't insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise

Why are you so afraid to have your intelligence insulted?

or make your self look stupid, by putting forth stupid arguments.

The only person here who would look stupid is the person who can't acknowledge that people all around the world use firearms for recreation and can go their entire lives and never hurt anyone with a firearm.

The only person here who would look stupid is the one that can't acknowledge or admit that they believe that the lives lost for recreational alcohol is an acceptable cost to enjoy alcohol.

The only person here who would look stupid is the one who beats on and on about how something is designed to kill yet deliberately ignores the fact that over 99% of the owners of said product won't use it for those reasons thus wasting everyone's time on said argument.

The only person here who would look stupid is the one who claims that it is relevant if something is designed to kill or not if their goal is to save lives. Any intelligent person would know that the distinction has zero practical benefits to saving lives, it doesn't magically make a product safer in the future, it doesn't magically reduce the risk that the product currently poses. Nor does it mean that a product can't be just as deadly as something that is designed to kill.

Everyone here knows that the reason why you want guns banned is not to save lives but to get rid of something you don't approve of. You don't care about the people who die from firearms, you never have, you just don't like guns and whenever anyone calls you out on it your responses are distinctions that have zero practical benefits which means they are nothing more than euphemisms for saying: Yes I'm being a hypocrite but I will never admit to it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The toddlers took out 17 innocent people before accidentally turning on their fathers. In all the years we've been debating guns, I guess I never told you that. Not your fault.

Why do you liberals always think humor is your strong suit? It really isn't. I'm just saying a gun saved my fathers life and that's all I care about, my kin. You don't like guns and I seriously respect that, but I do, always have and after my fathers situation, even more. We can agree to disagree, I'm not trying o change your position and you will definitely NOT change mine.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I'm saying that having a test that every single statement or comment or opinion on every single topic that involves people being injured or killed that has to make the family and friends of those impacted feel better doesn't help the conversation nor move it forward a single inch nor does it help make better policies/laws.

In this case, they are the ones whose opinion should matter the most, as they are the ones who have been most affected by the legality of guns, and they are the group that will keep increasing in numbers as long as guns are legal. Their opinion doesn't help you keep guns legal, nor does it help you keep the policies and laws the way they are, which is why you are discrediting their opinion.

And allowing firearms a society doesn't collapse either.

But kids get shot and murdered while trying to learn.

No one is stupid enough to think they are an equivalent

Yes they are

Are they now? You are the one who made the comparison, and none of the rest of us are stupid enough to think that, so you can only be talking about yourself then.

The same benefits that people get from recreational Alcohol consumption are the same benefits people get when using a firearm for recreation at a range or for the most part any recreation that people do.

Different enjoyment. One is enjoying practicing murder and killing. The other isn't. Apple and orange.

Why are you so afraid to have your intelligence insulted?

Why would you think I'm afraid? I'm annoyed of the attempts at gun lovers who are willing to let children die so that they can have their steel phalluses to try to pretend that other things that aren't made for killing are even remotely equivalent. You say some people are stupid enough to believe they are, and well maybe some of you are, but the rest of us aren't.

Everyone here knows that the reason why you want guns banned is not to save lives but to get rid of something you don't approve of.

This is about as stupid a comment as any gun lover has ever said - the only reason I don't approve of gun is because they take people's lives. Kids get murdered at school. Kids murder each other. Kids kill each other accidentally because their parents are too stupid to not have a gun in the house.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There has been a few comments on X amount of suicide and only slightly higher X amount of firearms deaths, is this some sort of justification as say guns are ok? Suicide is taking of ones own life, its your decision, taken out on one self, but to go out and kill innocent people with a gun is NOT there decision its yours or some else's. I don't see the comparison.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@NolivingQuite frankly I think the drills are irrational, if you take the 57 divided by 13 you get just over 4 homicides per year or a 0.01 per 100,000 gun homicide rate at schools from firearms which is basically the same homicide rate at schools for the UK and Canada, to further put that into perspective more children die on school sport teams than from gun homicides on average. The American school homicide rate is really not any higher than other developed nations.

And that is a good enough reason to never even think about banning gun possession by civilians???

Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns. …Yeah it is so stupid that as a result one hundredth of one percent of its population is killed by it each year......

I am lost for words. An overwhelming logic indeed!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And allowing firearms a society doesn't collapse either. And just like with cars register the guns. More powerful guns need stricter registration. On a limited basis you can own a machine gun but requires very strict registration and I have not heard of any being used in mass shootings. Registration works.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ Nishikat, On a limited basis you can own a machine gun but requires very strict registration and I have not heard of any being used in mass shootings. well thats not true, most of the high school shooting are with fully automatic machine guns, the only allowed M,G should be deactivated one then there is no chance of it being used, I know that collectors like to collect old WW1 and WW2 stuff, and I don't have a problem with this, why do people think that they need one in there home? a hand gun is more effective if your house is being broken into or, you would not use one for shooting dear or rabbits for hunting, as they are not as accurate as a single shot bolt action rifle. the only use for a M,G is the front line military.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland - "Is that what you want? More criminals with guns?"

I'd personally rather have a gun if a criminal with a gun was around. But by all means, defend yourself with your bare hands. :)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Magnet.

There are more ways to defend yourself than bare hands or using a Gun.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'd personally rather have a gun if a criminal with a gun was around.

But that wasn't the question was it. The question was whether or not you want a state in which more or less criminals have guns. Which would you prefer?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The state where more or less criminals have guns is irrelevant, if the populace has no means to deter them and defend themselves. So either or, as long as I'm armed.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The state where more or less criminals have guns is irrelevant, if the populace has no means to deter them and defend themselves.

Well you say that, yet here in Japan, the populace has 'no means to deter them and defend themselves', and what do we see? Very, very few gun deaths.

So you are in fact incorrect, more or less criminals having guns is very relevant.

So again I ask, which do you prefer, a state where criminals have more guns, or less?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Terrorizing children is the price of freedom right-wingers' interpretation of the Second Amendment imposes on America; meanwhile, they're in a frenzy about toilet usage. Priorities.

It has nothing to do with left or right wing priorities. I personally think the Second Amendment needs a major re-write to bring it out of the 18th Century and into the 21st Century. BUT... as a school employee I see the need to conduct these drills. That said, I don't know what value scaring the kids with gunshot sounds and fake blood have - we don't do such things in our school district. We generally have a couple of lockdown drills in every district school every school year, and during the Summer the city police hold active shooter drills in the high school with full SWAT gear, drawn weapons, and K9 squads. This lets the police iron out the kinks in their procedures for "active shooter in the school" situations. Staff in the school during those Summer drills are warned that the K9 patrols are NOT to be approached, because the dog isn't going to be friendly.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

most of the high school shooting are with fully automatic machine guns Like what the military use? Really?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strangerland, you seem to have a very simple view of the issue, completely disregarding social, cultural, drug-related, and socio-economic factors (of which there are many, particularly when comparing Americans to Japanese). I'll leave you with that to ponder on.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

you seem to have a very simple view of the issue, completely disregarding social, cultural, drug-related, and socio-economic factors (of which there are many, particularly when comparing Americans to Japanese).

You seem to have a confused view of the issue, completely disregarding safety, cultural, drug-related and socio-economic factors (of which there are many, particularly when comparing the rest of the world to America).

I'll leave you with that statement that is equally as empty as yours, to ponder on.

And I notice you still don't answer the question on whether you prefer to live in a society where criminals have more or less guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

High school shootings, please read this link to Wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States right at the bottom, it lists last year's shootings, there is almost 1-3 shooting a month. I can see why they are starting to have drills in schools but what is the real problem? syco's that able to get hold of guns. thats the problem. In the UK there are many legally held firearms, but I can't ever recall any school shooting. these gun laws in the USA need to be changed, they need to be changed NOW! attitudes need to changed to, and when they change them they need to be enforced right across the USA not just in the odd state here and their, If these laws are not going to change. keep watching the news for these tragic news flashes.....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In this case, they are the ones whose opinion should matter the most, as they are the ones who have been most affected by the legality of guns, and they are the group that will keep increasing in numbers as long as guns are legal. Their opinion doesn't help you keep guns legal, nor does it help you keep the policies and laws the way they are, which is why you are discrediting their opinion.

Stranger how does pointing out that mass killers don't have a personal grudge against children in general when they attack a school and are most likely doing it for the fame mean you or I are attempting to discredit their opinion? Explain that one.

But kids get shot and murdered while trying to learn.

The homicide rate at USA grade schools is basically the same as the developed world, for example the homicide rate of the UK grade schools was basically the same if not slightly higher this past year and half than the USA.

Are they now? You are the one who made the comparison, and none of the rest of us are stupid enough to think that, so you can only be talking about yourself then.

When you have two products that over 99.9%, literally, are used for non-malicious reasons and are overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation when in the hands of the civilians is what makes them an equivalent. To suggest that the only thing that can makes products an equivalent is what they were designed for is just intellectually dishonest.

Different enjoyment. One is enjoying practicing murder and killing. The other isn't. Apple and orange.

Really? You believe that every single target shooter or even the vast majority of those target shooting, especially those tourists from Europe, East Asia, Japan and China especially, when they go to a gun range their primary motivation is to practice homicide and killing?

Would you say those that practice the sport of fencing are just practicing to murder and kill by stabbing? How about the Olympic fencers? Heck about the Olympians that are target shooters at the games, whether it be with bow or a gun.

Lets say you are correct, what is the conversion rate then of those who target shoot? We already know that the gun death rate(Suicides, accidents, and homicides) is one hundredth of one percent and if you include those wounded then it it is three hundredths of one percent. So are we talking about 1%? 10%? or are we talking about something is a fraction of a fraction of one percent?

I'm annoyed of the attempts at gun lovers who are willing to let children die so that they can have their steel phalluses to try to pretend that other things that aren't made for killing are even remotely equivalent.

This is coming from a person who is willing to let more children die from Alcohol so that he can get his rocks off of on Alcohol.

Do you honestly believe it helps your argument that more children die from something that isn't designed to kill people than from something that is? Do you honestly think it helps your argument that the vast majority of gun owners don't hurt people? Do you honestly think it helps your argument that gun owners send less people to the hospital then people who drink Alcohol?

I will say it again, to claim that the only thing that matters when claiming products are equivalent to one another is what they were originally designed for is just intellectually dishonest.

the only reason I don't approve of gun is because they take people's lives. Kids get murdered at school. Kids murder each other. Kids kill each other accidentally because their parents are too stupid to not have a gun in the house.

Then you should have no problem acknowledging that if your goal is to save lives then what something is designed to do is irrelevant because a premature death is a premature death regardless of its cause.

And I notice you still don't answer the question on whether you prefer to live in a society where criminals have more or less guns.

I prefer to live in a world where criminals have less access to weapons of any type, I prefer to live in a world where criminals have less access to any items that they could wield/use for malicious reasons.

With that being said I have to weigh the increase in odds of something bad happening because of the increase access vs the amount of people using those things for non-malicious reasons.

In this case of firearms we know that with a gun ownership rate of 32-50% it has resulted in a three thousandth of one percent of the USA population being murdered on an annual basis and two hundredths of one percent physically wounded.

In general if you have a product that is owned by 32-50% of the population for non-malicious reasons and it results in a similar number of people being murdered and wounded then I would say that is an acceptable cost. How about you Stranger?

And that is a good enough reason to never even think about banning gun possession by civilians??? Definitely the stupidest in the world when it comes to guns. …Yeah it is so stupid that as a result one hundredth of one percent of its population is killed by it each year......

So Jane what you are saying is that you believe Alcohol should be banned then? Or do you believe that the amount of people dying from Alcohol is an acceptable cost to enjoy Alcohol if push came to shove in terms of keeping Alcohol legal?

I am lost for words. An overwhelming logic indeed!

Yeah it is, who could have ever imagine that people refuse to let the odds of something that small dictate how they will live their lives. Is it morally and ethically wrong Jane to say that something that has the odds of like 1 out of 50,000 chance annually of hurting/killing you is acceptable?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Registration for all gun owners. A UCLA prof. was recently murdered and 2A Conservative Pro-Trump White Bundies are already blaming him instead of the shooter (".....it was his fault because he was not carrying a gun that would have saved his life. He died because he was a Liberal...."). What a waste. How much of his life did he work hard to get where he was? Gun registration might have been able to save him. But the Pro-Trump Bundies say it was 100% the Liberal professor's fault.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strangerland, of course I'd prefer to live in a state where criminals have zero access to guns. I'd also like to live in a state where criminals have no access to food or water, but just like gun control preventing criminals from having access to guns is a pipe dream that will never happen, this is also an impossibility. So, let me now ask you a question: if you were in a room with a criminal with a gun, would you or would you not want a gun to defend yourself with? Think of my statements as empty as you like, it only shows how ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

if you were in a room with a criminal with a gun, would you or would you not want a gun to defend yourself with? See? the UCLA prob. is blamed for not having a gun. It's always the non gun owner's fault. Even if you have a gun if someone sucker shoots you then you probably have no chance like with Chris Kyle or the four cops who were killed while making their preps at a coffee shop in Lakewood Washington. Having a gun for self defense if overrated. I mean it didn't save the closest thing to Superman (C. Kyle) or four armed cops so it probably won't save you. It would just act like an extra weight to carry around during your lifetime. Let's do strict registration.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Gun registration might have been able to save him.

Gun registration won't save anyone. Neither will strict gun laws and gun-free zones. Guns are here to stay get used to it.

But the Pro-Trump Bundies say it was 100% the Liberal professor's fault.

No. It was the gunman's fault. If he didn't find a gun that day, he could've easily stabbed the teacher to death. I'm glad this wasn't a bloody rampage across the campus with dozens killed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Gun registration won't save anyone. Neither will strict gun laws and gun-free zones. Japan. Lots of guns here and I have not heard of any criminal shootings recently. Proof it works.

Guns are here to stay get used to it. Where is here? The USA or Japan? Which country are you in? Do you know where you are?

No. It was the gunman's fault. But , the 2A Bundies are blaming the professor right and left. They say he was a Liberal in a Liberal state and that's why it happened.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan. Lots of guns here and I have not heard of any criminal shootings recently. Proof it works.

Silly rabbit. Of course it works in Japan. . . . but it won't in america.

Guns are here to stay get used to it. Where is here? The USA or Japan?

Silly rabbit. Of course I meant the USA.

Bundies are blaming the professor right and left.

Silly rabbit . . . that ole saying goes "left & right." . . . . let them blame who they want. People kill people . . . .with guns, knives or even bare hands. If there's a will, there's a way.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The homicide rate at USA grade schools is basically the same as the developed world, for example the homicide rate of the UK grade schools was basically the same if not slightly higher this past year and half than the USA.

Interesting that you focus on 'grade school'. I wonder why you don't include high school and university?

Actually I don't wonder.

over 99.9%, literally, are used for non-malicious reasons and are overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation

And I wonder where you pulled that particular statistic from? According to the Pew Research Centre, a poll in 2013 showed that nearly half - 48% - of gun-owners in the US have a gun for 'protection'; 2% 'because it's their constitutional right/they support the 2nd Amendment'; 2% don't know why they have a gun; 32% use guns for hunting; 2% are collectors and 7% have guns for target/sport shooting. Even if you consider killing wild (or in many cases, canned★) furry/feathery things for fun 'recreational' rather than highly malicious, it's obvious that guns are not overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation. People have guns, those people say, for protection. They're scared.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

(★http://www.bornfreeusa.org/a9d_hunts.php)

it has resulted in a three thousandth of one percent of the USA population being murdered on an annual basis

That works out at fewer than 10,000 gun deaths per year. In 2015 over 13,000 were killed by firearms (not including suicides), so your figures are off there, too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The gun lobby in America is insane, and destroying the country.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Interesting that you focus on 'grade school'. I wonder why you don't include high school and university?

But this article itself is in fact focusing on grade school, so his comments are relevant.

If we were to go to hs / university though, yes -lots of active shooter incidents.

People have guns, those people say, for protection. They're scared.

Darn right we are. In CA, there are terrible criminals. San Bernardino city, roughly 50-60 mi east of Los Angeles is a hell-hole. In fact San Bernardino County is one of the most dangerous counties in the US. LA is terrible too.

Lots of Blacks and Latinos committing crimes. "illegals" too . . . . & some posters say we don't need a wall-

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Lots of Blacks and Latinos committing crimes. "illegals" too . . . . & some posters say we don't need a wall-

Lots of "Whites" and "Asians" as well. Don't try to make it out to be just a few ethnic groups. What wall do we need to build to protect ourselves from the WHITE criminals? No. Walls aren't going to solve the problem as they will always be able to be breached. Only Trump thinks walls are a solution because he lives in a fantasy world where everybody does what he says or gets fired.

As long as the Second Amendment remains as-written, the Supreme Court will basically squash any attempts to bring some rationality into the matter. The obvious answer is that the Second Amendment needs a re-write so that the concept of home protection is maintained while imposing more limits on the high-capacity magazine weapons we find in use during mass shootings. For example: A short-barreled shotgun is excellent home defense from an intruder without the need for a 30-round banana clip.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

most of the high school shooting are with fully automatic machine guns Like what the military use? Really?

In the 49 mass shootings between Columbine and Sandy Hook (including Columbine and Sandy Hook), 9 involved semi automatic military style rifles, 10 involved the use of shotguns and 37 involved the use of hand guns. None of the weapons used were fully automatic, that is none as in zero.

A short-barreled shotgun is excellent home defense from an intruder without the need for a 30-round banana clip.

Shotguns have been used in US mass shootings more often than military style rifles.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Silly rabbit. Of course I meant the USA. But where are you?

some posters say we don't need a wall But the illegal's solution to a 10B dollar wall is a 10 dollar ladder....or a 5 dollar shovel. It's a waste of money.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Interesting that you focus on 'grade school'. I wonder why you don't include high school and university?

Because high school is grade school in the USA. Depending upon your definition it is grades 9th or 10th-12th.

As for colleges/universities, Stranger was talking about children not adults.

And I wonder where you pulled that particular statistic from? According to the Pew Research Centre, a poll in 2013 showed that nearly half - 48% - of gun-owners in the US have a gun for 'protection'; 2% 'because it's their constitutional right/they support the 2nd Amendment'; 2% don't know why they have a gun; 32% use guns for hunting; 2% are collectors and 7% have guns for target/sport shooting. Even if you consider killing wild (or in many cases, canned★) furry/feathery things for fun 'recreational' rather than highly malicious, it's obvious that guns are not overwhelmingly primarily used for recreation. People have guns, those people say, for protection. They're scared.

Easy - I said owned for non-malicious reasons and is overwhelming used for recreation. The vast majority of those that own firearms for protections are far more likely to use the firearm for target shooting then they are for self defense or to assault/kill someone, much less themselves, for malicious reasons.

If you own a firearm then you will use it at some point for target shooting. Also there are multiple reasons one can have, the poll is only allowing one answer which would be the primary reason but people who a firearm primarily for self defense can also own it because they enjoy target shooting and the opposite is true, someone who owns one for target shooting doesn't mean they won't or can't use one in the event they need to use physical force to defend themselves.

That works out at fewer than 10,000 gun deaths per year. In 2015 over 13,000 were killed by firearms (not including suicides), so your figures are off there, too.

Your own link says this:

The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000

So in other words according to your own link the per capita gun homicide rate was just under three thousandths of one percent.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites