This is actually a pretty interesting thought exercise. Let's say it does become illegal to buy or sell an assault rifle. How would you go about buying one on the black market?
My point which you well know was that the .223/5.56 that the ar 15 shoots is anemic compared to modern hunting rifles. It is not some big bad scary super bummer. 9mm kill far more each year than the 5.56 Joe’s favorite weapon of choice to shoot into the air .. the shotgun.. kills more people each year. There is nothing inherently scary about the ar 15 anymore so than most other rifle rounds.
Here in Polk County, they are ALL fenced in with a single entrance and exit, though many have a couple of additional gates they will open up for pickup and dismissal for car lines and busses. All students wear uniforms, even in elementary school, Even my kids' private school is that way and has a local PD officer (not an SRO) present all day. You're right that these aren't rational actors. However, many of them are banking on having no armed resistance, which is why they choose the school in the first place. Many take their own lives when they encounter armed resistance, and armed resistance could be enough to break up their thought process and slow their decision making even if they don't immediately fold tent. Worst case, they continue doing what they were doing but might have to slow down a bit. And yes, many teachers probably wouldn't kill anyone. That is ok, nobody is saying they should have to. That said, there are some who would choose to take that on. Grady Judd has a few here in Polk County at the public schools that are deputized and trained under the guardian program and armed. We've seen examples of many who have done so unarmed and attempted to physically confront a shooter and paid for it with their lives. Why not let those who are responsible, in the best position to respond the quickest, and would make that choice to stand in the way of evil have a fighting chance of stopping them or delaying them enough to save lives? It isn't the fix or the answer to everything but it is a viable part of a multi-pronged strategy. The problem with most of these shooters is none of them have actually committed any crimes prior to their shooting and they haven't been involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective in a court of law. It isn't that we are rubber stamping background checks, it is that we can't deny someone a constitutional right without due process of law, and if we make the process of getting help punitive, then nobody will want to get help for their issues. Nobody wants crazies to be able to buy guns, but how do we know someone intends harm if they don't tell us or show us? And if they do, how do we objectively and rapidly evaluate without bias or agenda and provide the accused with due process? I don't think it is meaningless, it is just hard to identify, especially when many of these crazies become adept at blending in and not indicating they are, in fact, crazy. We can't read minds.
Once again it is magazine capacity. And personal responsibility was never a thing, even among the Freedom clan who really mean “you’re not the boss of me”
Most of our gun problems are drug- and gang-related among a particular demographic segment of the country. Background checks and training requirements won't solve those because by and large, those aren't the types of individuals who acquire their guns lawfully.
The law abiding wouldn't. The non-law abiding (prohibited persons) would go about it the same way they are already acquire them today.
I have mixed feelings about high cap mags, for example. But I'm not sure the argument is that training is necessary because it's too hard to kill a lot of people without the training.
So you guys solution is to somehow amend the constitution and abolish 2A to make it harder for evil people to get guns to shoot up schools? Awesome!
Reasonable restriction does not equal abolishing. No right is absolute. BTW, how do you feel about voting rights? I'm gonna guess you'll do a 180.
Let's try a game of revealed preference. You have to kill a lot of moving people in a short period of time. Somebody puts an AR-15, a shotgun, and a 9 mm in front of you and tells you that you have to pick one. Which one do you pick?
I don't think that the AR15 alone should be banned. I also don't think that the fact that something more powerful exists means that something is safe or acceptable. Anemic vs a 50 cal doesn't mean it's ok. Regardless, people's gun hobbies and paranoia of a federal government overreach seem to be more important to them than safety or practicality.
Maybe it’s not the school’s fault. Let’s say we harden all the schools and their entry points and have magnometers at every entry point manned by armed security won’t the shooters just turn elsewhere? Nursing homes, offices, sporting events, concerts, churches etc. - wherever people are congregated might be come targets and the new focus of the miserable. Some of those locales have already been used. Maybe it’s not entirely the presence of schools and the kids within. Maybe a deadly proportion of modern era Americans can not bear the responsibility of gun ownership.
But these shooters aren't buying them illegally and they're largely younger, anti-social individuals. It might be my ignorance but I'm not sure it would be that simple and think it would be possible for authorities to monitor. Gun shows? Search for 'how to buy an assault rifle'? Online/message board communities?
Again, if it is just about the individual, why does no other country have this issue of mass school shootings like the US does?
Most all cops that I have met are totally opposed to the proliferation of assault rifles and magazines (however you want to define them). It actually makes their jobs much tougher.
