This term is on virtually every single headline. However, when are we going to talk about people violence since an inanimate object cannot cause something on its own?

It's a great buzzword for election season

I own lots of guns and I'm against the vast majority of "gun control" measures I've seen proposed but we should all be able to agree that kids getting massacred in school by depraved killers is a serious problem and that turning schools into hardened bunkers isn't a realistic solution

Because it's about controlling evil guns. Not about the welfare of people.

Don't you know that if guns disappeared then all of humanity would become peaceful and nobody would suffer from violence ever again?

GAC06 said:

---

I own lots of guns and I'm against the vast majority of "gun control" measures I've seen proposed but we should all be able to agree that kids getting massacred in school by depraved killers is a serious problem and that turning schools into hardened bunkers isn't a realistic solution

---

There is no other solution. You should be target hardened all areas of your life. You're a dad, your family's safety is your responsibility, not the governments.

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

GAC06 said:

---

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

---

That won't happen.

It is absolutely realistic to expect people to protect themselves and not outsource their protection to the government. Humans prioritized self protection skills for millennia.

El_Zorro said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

---

That won't happen.

It is absolutely realistic to expect people to protect themselves and not outsource their protection to the government. Humans prioritized self protection skills for millennia.

---

You aren't going to arm 10 year olds. Schools need several armed people at each one.

GAC06 said:

---

I own lots of guns and I'm against the vast majority of "gun control" measures I've seen proposed but we should all be able to agree that kids getting massacred in school by depraved killers is a serious problem and that turning schools into hardened bunkers isn't a realistic solution

---

If you can build multi million dollar football stadiums you can add some security. Many schools already have controlled access doors for instance. We are not giving up our guns

GeorgiAg said:

---

El_Zorro said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

---

That won't happen.

It is absolutely realistic to expect people to protect themselves and not outsource their protection to the government. Humans prioritized self protection skills for millennia.

---

You aren't going to arm 10 year olds. Schools need several armed people at each one.

---

You arm the people around them.

This absence of logic is how you ended up voting for Biden. Trump is bad, we have to something. Anything!!

GAC06 said:

---

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

---

The problem is will be evil/sick people deciding who the evil/sick people are.

We need to do something because this trend isn't reversing anytime soon between social media, covid lockdown damage, and general societal breakdown. I carry but I'm not liking my chances in various settings with my carry pistol up against a rifle

GAC06 said:

---

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

---

good idea...and joe biden should be the one who decides who is evil/sick

Most of these killers are pretty clearly crazy

GAC06 said:

---

Most of these killers are pretty clearly crazy

---

Absolutely agree with you on that. So how do we sort out who is truly crazy versus who is "crazy" as defined by the political party in charge?

GAC06 said:

---

Most of these killers are pretty clearly crazy

---

so are some of the people in govt...they will inevitably use it against the innocent

GAC06 said:

---

We need to do something because this trend isn't reversing anytime soon between social media, covid lockdown damage, and general societal breakdown. I carry but I'm not liking my chances in various settings with my carry pistol up against a rifle

---

I like my chances against some 18 year old emo kid just fine.

There will always be soft targets.

GAC06 said:

---

There will always be soft targets.

---

Correct. Be a hard one. THAT IS ALL YOU CAN DO.

Let me post my guide to combating this for you.


First, you and those supervising your kids must acquire one of these.


Then you and those you leave your kids with must go to this religiously.


Until both them and you can shoot as closely as possible to these people.


Then whenever you leave this.


Make sure you or the people with your kids are carrying this.


While out in the world, keep a close eye out for this.


And this.


And this.


This is the best that can be done to make sure you or your family are not the victim of a mass shooting.

No, we can do more without impacting 99% of gun owners

GAC06 said:

---

Not a dad but I pretty much carry all the time. It's not realistic to expect everyone to do that though. Even if schools are fortified to the point that they aren't targeted there will always be soft targets. We need to do more to keep weapons away from evil/sick people

---

The only way to implement that is to put government in charge of determining evil/sick people.

That is something I won't agree with.

GAC06 said:

---

I own lots of guns and I'm against the vast majority of "gun control" measures I've seen proposed but we should all be able to agree that kids getting massacred in school by depraved killers is a serious problem and that turning schools into hardened bunkers isn't a realistic solution

---

What IS a realistic solution?

This is a people problem. Disaffected men with hardened hearts.

The underlying issue is not who has guns. Trying to keep guns away from anyone solves nothing. Many countries in Europe have banned gun ownership entirely. And what is happening there now... serial stabbings. If someone wants to hurt someone else they will find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass. Instead of trying to take away/restrict implements that can be used to inflict harm we need to focus our attention on what has caused an up tick in these violent actions and what we can do to prevent them.

What if there isn't a solution. What if part of a free society is taking the good with the bad. It breaks my heart that this happened especially to children but what if there is no real answer? Can we accept that?

I know for sure more gun laws will not make a difference and I am sure as hell not willing to give guns up to our govt. so do we just accept the good with the bad?

Guns were readily available and in the cars of many students when I was growing up. These school shootings were non-existent. What has changed? Not the guns. They are pretty similar. Nope. It's something else.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

What if there isn't a solution. What if part of a free society is taking the good with the bad. It breaks my heart that this happened especially to children but what if there is no real answer? Can we accept that?

I know for sure more gun laws will not make a difference and I am sure as hell not willing to give guns up to our govt. so do we just accept the good with the bad?

---

It's not a constitutional right to have the internet available to everyone, so maybe if they're deemed a threat to the rest of society, they should be banned.

One good place to start? Actually enforce laws that are already on the books.

Two significant ones come to mind: 1) ensure that all of the myriad of criminal databases actually work together to provide better results to the National Instant Check System; and 2) Prosecute people who try to buy firearms that are prohibited to do so (mental illness, domestic violence, illegal aliens, convicted felons, etc.).

Unfortunately, these are NOT the kind of sexy, headline-worthy solutions that politicians crave. In fact, simply enforcing current law would expose people to the reality that politicians and law enforcement aren't currently doing their jobs well? These are the kind of solutions that would take a lot of actual effort, require agencies to selflessly work together, and....wait for it....funding. Therefore, it will probably never happen. My $0.02.

GAC06 said:

---

I own lots of guns and I'm against the vast majority of "gun control" measures I've seen proposed but we should all be able to agree that kids getting massacred in school by depraved killers is a serious problem and that turning schools into hardened bunkers isn't a realistic solution

---

Conceptually, I am in favor of keeping guns away from unstable people who will use them to illegally inflict harm on others, and I think everybody is. But at a practical level, there are three concerns that make it nearly impossible.

First, what is the standard for being "fit to own a gun," how is that standard created, and who is involved in creating it? Once you set a fair standard (if that's even possible), how do you test people to ascertain whether they meet the standard? Who creates the test? What are the components of the test? Do they adequately reflect the standard that has been agreed upon? How is the test administered? Who administers the test? How does the test generate intelligible results? How do you analyze the results to determine whether the standard has been met? Who is the person analyzing the results? Who is the person deciding whether the results are sufficient to satisfy the standard? Inevitably, people who have every right to own a firearm and pose no risk will still "fail" the test and be denied a constitutional right. This is not acceptable. That's the first problem.

The second problem is that, if you allow some sort of standard and test to be implemented, the radical totalitarian element of the democrat party will IMMEDIATELY seize on it and use it as a means to start denying as many people the right to own guns as they can. That could be by adjusting the standard, adjusting the test, or by handpicking the people who administer the test and/or analyze and apply the results. This is also not acceptable.

The third problem is that, not only will the standard and test wrongfully deny some people gun ownership, they will also inevitably fail to identify some people who shouldn't own guns. So after all of the headache of setting up these hoops to jump through just to exercise our constitutional right, these tragedies will still happen. What then? Then of course the same people who demanded the implementation of the test will start demanding that we implement MORE hurdles and more restrictions, and so on and so forth until the Second Amendment is effectively destroyed. This is also unacceptable.

I think hardening schools is probably the best strategy, in addition to allowing teachers and school to identify and do something about problem kids with a propensity for violence. But there are still soft targets everywhere. In a free society, people will abuse their freedom to hurt other people. That is just inevitable, and it's why we have laws in place and a criminal justice system to prosecute offenders. But even that is not always a deterrent. You simply cannot prevent all crime while also maintaining a free society.

GAC06 said:

---

I own lots of guns and I'm against the vast majority of "gun control" measures I've seen proposed but we should all be able to agree that kids getting massacred in school by depraved killers is a serious problem and that turning schools into hardened bunkers isn't a realistic solution

---

It is a realistic solution. It will cost money but is doable. Ever been to the College Station Police Department? You can walk into the front lobby, but that's as far as you go. Doors, walls, windows all bulletproof. You have to be buzzed in. Schools can do a scaled down version of this. Quit spending billions on Covid and Ukraine and put money into the schools. But we won't get serious about this. Hell we're not even concerned about stopping illegal drugs at the border like fentanyl. 100,000 have been killed with these drugs. Mostly young people.

drunk driving accidents should be labeled as car violence.

I think an easy start is to further age restrict firearms. It's certainly not a full solution but a significant number of these school shootings are by very young men/boys

No