I wish someone would answer this.

How did the right to bears arm positively affect this situation? Can we at least look at school shootings and acknowledge that a.) the right to bear arms rarely comes into play and b.) the vast majority of school shooters get firearms not from the black market, but from relatives who own them through legal means?

tl;dr: the one touted advantage of gun ownership is moot in this scenario, and banning guns would at the very least make it much more difficult for angsty, impulsive teens to get their hands on them.

Honestly, I don't think there are many people who hold that opinion. In my experience, even the biggest gun control advocates recognize that it might be perfectly reasonable to own a gun of some kind if you live out in middle-of-nowhere Alaska or something. I think you're absolutely right with regards to context and I think it's important for both sides to realize that it cuts both ways. Just like a city guy like me needs to recognize that there may be legit reasons to have gun out in the country, people in rural areas need to understand that there's a reason a lot of urban people don't want guns in their cities.

Well, the right to bear arms didn't positively affect this because A) Firearms are not allowed at school, and B) There was no armed guard at the school.

I'm not sure if you're trying to fault the right to bear arms not saving the day when weapons are not allowed at school and no armed guards were present. We aren't exactly calling for 9 year olds to be able to carry guns at school to protect themselves from would-be assassins...

Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

I don't think he implied that guns are okay in the middle of nowhere but not okay in big cities. It's a matter of civil liberties and personal choices. Those things apply in downtown Philly and nowhere Alaska.

Ah, in that case I'm sorry to say I don't think you really responded to my statements either. I was mostly addressing the "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument that comes up so much in gun control conversations. Point A was simply that, despite what many seem to think, it is actually a lot harder for an unhinged guy like the shooter in this case to get a hold of a street gun than a legal one. Point B was a commentary about street guns' origins as legally purchased firearms.

Who is "he"? Freebase? Yeah, he didn't say either of those things. I was the one saying them.

Haha, okay let's slow down and get rational. You (Janszoon) implied those things. And I understand why. My response remains the same ("he" being FD).

Give me a minute to read your last post that responded to mine for a minute. I'm kind of slow.

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?

I'm just going to assume that everything I type that is not replied to, is universally agreed upon in this forum.

I f*cking hate being agreed with.
I live for arguments.
Someone argue with me.


Edit:
Thanks Tuna!

Your shoes don't match your pants.

So three nerds walk into a bar.
One says "Let's get drunk and talk about gun politics."

Nobody else said anything worth mentioning.