Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna
It really goes for any kind of spree killing where 99% of the time it ends up being the cops who take down the perpetrator.
There's two ways of looking at it obviously
-stricter gun control
-less gun control
Is #2 really a path we want to take? Fighting violence with violence, basically turning the U.S. into a hostile war zone of it's own, where everyone is so on edge that they feel the need to carry a gun on themselves at all times to be safe? Doesn't sound like a very hospitable environment to me.
An armed guard would potentially work, but at the same time it takes, what, 1 minute to gun down an entire classroom of people?
|
Well, to only see those two options as being valid to pursue sorta doesn't make very much of an argument, because I definitely don't think those are the only options that could fit on the table.
Making it harder to obtain firearms is somewhere in the middle, and it should be pursued vigorously, as that option lessens the chances of the wrong people obtaining them while not eliminating the chances of the right people obtaining them.
As far as an armed guard not really working because it could take 1 minute to kill a classroom, I gotta think you're intentionally not actually considering this discussion seriously. Tell you what. If you can come up with a plan to somehow figure out how to install an armed security guard in such a way as to actually prevent an armed 20 year old from entering a class room and killing all the students, you win.
Winning means your previous post is contradicted. Not winning means you're not very bright.