Why arming teachers is not the answer.

[Elegiac]

And by medical exam meaning you go to psychiatrist and say "no i won't shoot people, I just hunt"

Oh look, someone who has absolutely no idea what a psychiatric evaluation entails.

[Elegiac]

You need to read up on our gun laws again. I know multiple private citizens who legally own fully automatic guns.

I'd love to know how this remotely changes the fact that the US is lax on its gun regulations for weapons that aren't automatic, which do require a permit.

[d00mGuArD]

The fact you have to provide a 'good cause' makes it more burdensome than the US.

As you can see if you read two more words, shooting for fun at the shooting range, is good cause, and even justifies below 18 age
And that is not really a cause

[Nalera]

Everyone knows when a gun a designed for self defense or hunting. Guns that have high capacity magazines, and semi or full auto capabilities, are designed for one purpose. Killing as many people as efficiently and quickly as possible. Guns of war have no place in the hands of the general public.

All handguns are semi-automatic. Do you propose banning them?

[Elegiac]

As you can see if you read two more words, shooting for fun at the shooting range, is good cause, and even justifies below 18 age
And that is not really a cause

Masark already addressed this drivel.

[Pony Soldier]

It's just an all around bad idea. You can't expect someone who specializes in teaching to be an expert at handling and shooting guns and you can't expect them all to submit to a firearms training course.

It's ridiculous but I say just hire professional security or straight up hire police officers to guard the building. Let the people who deal with that kind of stuff handle it, not people who just want to teach.

[Deleted]

I didn't google Jim Jefferies. I googled Jeff Jefferies and am attempting to figure out who he is... Or are you admitting that you should have googled before posting?

I may have fucked up my snark

[Gorgodeus]

All handguns are semi-automatic. Do you propose banning them?

That falls under the self defense category, as long as it is a handgun.

[Player Twelve]

Only five 1st world countries have "may issue" Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain. But they issue for hunting and shooting range at any day. All you have to do is say it is for hunting, or for the range and not mention anything about self defense.

The rest are "Shall issue" meaning "subject to fulfillment of legal conditions, the authorities may not deny license and/or firearm(s)

Here is the European Union version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...No._2008/51/EC

Check out B category (although some of the B category are now A category - but check the requirements for the rest)

"Acquisition and possession allowed only to persons who have good cause, are older than 18 (or younger in case of hunters and sport shooters) and are not likely to be a danger to themselves, to public order or to public safety. subject to prior authorization"
(medical exam (usually interview with psychiatrist) is required also)

To get a pistol in Sweden that you can keep at home you need to be an active member of a shooting club, it's limited to 5 years at a time and then you need to reapply for a license and you only get to use it for shooting at a range or such, you can't keep it on you when you go shopping, if you are not transporting it to/from the shooting range or using it at the range, it's supposed to be locked up in a safe locker and during transport it has to be stored safely as well. To get a hunting rifle, you need to have received hunting education. To get your hands on a pistol or a hunting rifle you also need to pass the tests conducted for your suitability to possess said weapons. You can get a gun for self-defense purposes under very rare circumstances.

You can't legally possess an assault rifle as a civilian in Sweden as far as I know.

[d00mGuArD]

Mhmm. And it is allowed ONLY for those purposes. None of your moronic carrying. You get picked up with that gun and you're not going to or from the range, your license is gone and you're headed to prison.

Masark already addressed this drivel.

Indeed. I said it myself earlier that you are not allowed to carry. Nor use it (even using it in self defense is big trouble)
However, if someone has a gun at home, and wants to shoot a school, they will not care about the not-carry, would they

[Nalera]

That falls under the self defense category, as long as it is a handgun.

Okay now prove an AR-15 is more dangerous than a handgun. The evidence is overwhelming that its not. Only 3% of all murders in america are caused by rifles. More kids die in pools each year than by rifles. And even in school shootings there is no evidence they are more dangerous. The deadliest school shooting was Virginia Tech, the perpetrator used 2 handguns and killed 32 students.

My point is for your argument to be consistent you would have to want all guns illegal not just semi-automatic rifles. That's the argument you should be trying to make and you won't come close to making a compelling argument to disarm everyone in the US of A. This is the reality of gun control.

[Gorgodeus]

It's just an all around bad idea. You can't expect someone who specializes in teaching to be an expert at handling and shooting guns and you can't expect them all to submit to a firearms training course.

It's ridiculous but I say just hire professional security or straight up hire police officers to guard the building. Let the people who deal with that kind of stuff handle it, not people who just want to teach.

You would need as many guards as teachers to cover 1 school. Schools don't even have enough funding as it is. Where are the billions of dollars to fund something like armed guards going to come from? Parkland had an armed guard. Unless you are willing to build schools like a prison, with fencing, razor wire, dozens of guards, and very limited access, guards are easy to get past.

[Nalera]

How many mass shooting/murders are carried out by a single handgun from a single person as opposed to since person using a single semi-automatic rifle?

The only thing that matters is how dangerous a weapon is. if we ban AR-15 we should be under no illusion that schools are safer because its clear they are not.

In WW2 carpet bombing killed way more than the nuclear bomb, but no one is going to argue the nuclear bomb is less deadly.

[Gorgodeus]

Okay now prove an AR-15 is more dangerous than a handgun. The evidence is overwhelming that its not. Only 3% of all murders in america are caused by rifles. More kids die in pools each year than by rifles. And even in school shootings there is no evidence they are more dangerous. The deadliest school shooting was Virginia Tech, the perpetrator used 2 handguns and killed 32 students.

My point is for your argument to be consistent you would have to want all guns illegal not just semi-automatic rifles. That's the argument you should be trying to make and you won't come close to making a compelling argument to disarm everyone in the US of A. This is the reality of gun control.

Never occurred to you that handguns are vastly more common than semi-auto rifles? You can use a 100 round high capacity magazine with an AR-15. Show me a handgun that remotely comes close. Higher capacity and longer range makes rifles much deadlier than handguns.

[Turaska]

Australia managed to stop mass shootings completely with sweeping gun laws, they work... gun nuts and the NRA just don't want to accept that they work because boo hoo, my second amendment boo hoo (that was written before automatic weapons even existed)

The fact of the matter is, there is too much money changing hands over guns, the NRA is milking it, gun manufacturers are milking it and the majority of the Senate are milking it, as long as that money keeps flowing, your children's lives don't matter - it's that simple.

Again, Australia managed to do it, literally zero reasons America can't other than the above.

[Ghostpanther]

Meanwhile in Ohio. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/22...ur-safety.html they keep their firearms in safes instead of carrying them.

[Nalera]

Never occurred to you that handguns are vastly more common than semi-auto rifles? You can use a 100 round high capacity magazine with an AR-15. Show me a handgun that remotely comes close. Higher capacity and longer range makes rifles much deadlier than handguns.

All magazines are just cases with springs. You could make that out of wood in 30 mins. We could ban high capacity magazines but we would be assuming that criminals would respect those laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Australia managed to stop mass shootings completely with sweeping gun laws, they work... gun nuts and the NRA just don't want to accept that they work because boo hoo, my second amendment boo hoo (that was written before automatic weapons even existed)

The fact of the matter is, there is too much money changing hands over guns, the NRA is milking it, gun manufacturers are milking it and the majority of the Senate are milking it, as long as that money keeps flowing, your children's lives don't matter - it's that simple.

Again, Australia managed to do it, literally zero reasons America can't other than the above.

If somebody with a knife attacks you how long do you think you have to live? I would give the average person less than 10 second before they are mortally wounded. Guns are used for protection, who would want to go back living in a world where the strongest and fittest are at the top of the food chain? A strong man with a knife could kill tens people easily. On the other hand a woman with a gun is just as dangerous as a man with a gun and she may need that to protect her children or loved ones and she should have the opportunity to protect herself just as much as a strong person does.

[Player Twelve]

If somebody with a knife attacks you how long do you think you have to live? I would give the average person less than 10 second before they are mortally wounded. Guns are used for protection, who would want to go back living in a world where the strongest and fittest are at the top of the food chain? A strong man with a knife could kill tens people easily. On the other hand a woman with a gun is just as dangerous as a man with a gun and she may need that to protect her children or loved ones and she should have the opportunity to protect herself just as much as a strong person does.

If someone with a knife attacks you, your gun is useless.

[Acidz]

But when teachers are armed, shouldn't pupils have the right to carry a gun too so they can defend themselves against school staff turning malign?

[Nalera]

If someone with a knife attacks you, your gun is useless.

Guns can kill instantly from range. Knifes are dangerous but not that dangerous unless very close range.