Then the frequent mass killings will keep happening. That’s up to the American people.
I’m from Great Britain. In England, Scotland & Wales combined, about 60 million people.
There have been 3 mass shootings in 31 years.
There has been ONE school shooting in the last 100 years.
That was in 1996 using a hand gun. After that the following laws were passed:
“In response to this public debate, the Conservative government of John Major introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons in England, Scotland and Wales, but following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns as well.[20] This left only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. “Long-Arms”) that fall outside the Home Office definition of a “handgun” because of their dimensions. ”
I actually think 95% of Americans would go along with a gun ban & they’d hand their guns in for destruction if laws were passed.
I believe 95% of Americans realise current gun ownership is crazy.
The perception that Americans would violently riot if their guns were taken from them is NRA propaganda - because the NRA make so much money from firearms.
And your politicians make so much money from the NRA.
In 2016, the NRA spent $3.18 million lobbying politicians!
The NRA & politicians are getting rich off your dead loved ones.
Handguns in the US are often viewed as equalizers. I could live with a weapons free society, if all else we’re equal. But all is not equal. Sure, strong, able-bodied folks could throw up their dukes & ward off threats, but what about the weaker members of society? They would be at the mercy of the strong. My grandmother lives near Houston’s second ward; not somewhere you’d want to be lost. The fact that she is armed alleviates some of the tremendous strength & power advantages the predators in her area possess.
True, which is why I subscribe to the notion that people have an individual responsibility to learn to utilize the resources at their disposal to protect themselves and their families.
EDIT - and not tie the hands of protection by establishing soft targets with concepts such as gun free zones
I didn’t say the death is insignificant. I said the rate of occurrence is statistically insignificant and I wouldn’t base sweeping legislation on an emotional response to a tragic situation.
I don’t see dead kids or even dead adults as statistics. I also don’t understand the idea of statistically insignificant because I have yet to see someone state what would be statistically significant. You can’t have one without the other.
There was an officer assigned to Columbine as well. That didn’t deter the shooters. I’m not saying armed security will or won’t be effective but I think we forget we are talking about crazy people. They don’t exactly think rationally and if they are willing to die or even expect to die then the idea of scaring them away doesn’t make much sense.
What do people think of open campus type lay outs? This is the high school I went to. Wide open campus, no main hall ways, lots of exits, etc. Hard to patrol though. There were 3 security guards- two on foot, one in a car but were very easy to evade which has its own pros and cons.
