Gun control

ye spending more than 2x the first world average per pupil, an evergrowing pile of PUBLIC real money with no comparison anywhere else in the world, surely leaves you unable to afford guards.

Or you know you fire all DEI departments and the like, go back to the admin to faculty ratio of 1985, and hire guards instead.

or don't make it so damn easy to get a high powered weapon

Cat out of the bag, and can't get back in, regardless of preferences.

But claiming that public schools in the USA can't afford guards... lol.

.

The cat out of the bag argument is just another lame talking point from the gun nut lobby. Goes with "mah freedom" and "the constitution says so".

The real reason is because too many people in this country worship an inanimate object that has no other purpose other than to kill.

Since you all brought up private and public schools I think it is important to mention that private schools make up 25% of all schools and 10% of all kids in school attend private schools, but private schools only account for 6% of all school shootings.

Link below has a bit more info. Keep in mind they stripped out suicides and situations that often get included in school shooting statistics that likely shouldn't like a drug deal or gang related gun violence in the parking lot of school when there are no kids in the school.

https://www.cato.org/blog/are-shootings-...

As someone who's been long undecided on the gun issue, I'll go ahead and disagree with you on this rule. While exercise and mental training, so to speak, can be helpful, how would you implement something like this? Some form of exercise is already part of the curriculum (maybe it could be done better in a lot of instances) and "mental training" is narrowly defined. Are you suggesting that we mandate meditation for depressed kids? Something like that would never fly in public schools.

This does raise the broader issue of kids being bullied and the sort of anger that leads to these tragedies. It's not that it isn't a gun issue, because guns are clearly a part of the equation, but the drastic rise in school shootings over the decades, especially in recent years, speaks to deeper problems in our society. It's not as if access to guns is so much higher now than it was in the past but that kids are angrier and more lost. I think this can be attributed to a decline in values and the quality of our schools, broken homes, social media and sensory overload. There are reasons why these shootings weren't as widespread in the past, and it isn't primarily the guns. Are there solutions to these problems? Not sure. I think they could be solved, but for the most part, they have to happen organically.

Gregory, how do you mandate literacy in school curricula? Now imagine anything that can be taught could be mandated the same (up to the point of not having mandated too many things, and only for things than IQ 80 people can learn).

If we wanted to we could mandate heathy cooking in school curricula. 3 hours week since first grade talking about healthy food, how to buy groceries in a smart way, and home cooking.

It's a choice

Yes, but also it’s because life is demanding more from us. There is a sense of urgency from life itself. Time is speeding up. What was sufficient in the past culturally no longer is.

I don't disagree with any of this. It's just that it'd be unlikely to gain support. As far as my comment about how it would be implemented goes, what I was trying to say there is that we don't have a solid criteria for which kids would need this mental training and what that would be. Sure, we could develop one, but I'm far from confident that government would get it right. Chances are they'd create an even bigger mess.

Maybe, but I still think it has to happen organically, whatever the timeframe is. Small changes might be possible, but overall, these sort of things are influenced by the arts, popular philosophies, how well we adapt to new technologies, the people we look up to, etc. It will take a cultural shift.

I don’t think the government should run it either fwiw.

Oh you train all, what you need to do is to properly test the training (which isn't necessarily easy).

Anyway I think any martial art would be enough to fix 80-90% of (male) problems, if done 2-3 hours per week in k12.

Not sure for girls tbh

Right? I mean an AR-15 as a Christmas gift for a 14 year old is something only an American could come up with.

States can easily make that illegal with no interference with the 2a.

If they choose not to take it to them. Not a federal matter.

There is not a single person who is reading this who is not already aware you know you’re lying and that any attempt to do exactly what you said will be appealed and overturned like the countless other attempts that were appealed and overturned

But you know that. You just want to play dumb. Thank you for your service, Corporal

There is nothing in Bruen preventing states for limiting access to weapons to minors given it was a common occurrence since the beginning of your republic so that means it was compatible with the 2a.

They appealed and overturned attempts to limit access FOR ADULTS because that's not constitutional.

I hope you didn't know this, which is why I provided a long legal explainer on the topic, with the current doubt being about people between 18 and 21 years.

But under 18 years it's perfectly constitutional to limit access to all guns (at the state level).

Georgia didn't do it, it's their prerogative, not an American matter though. You are not France, the opinion of people not living on Georgia is utterly irrelevant on the topic of whether Georgian minors can access guns or not and how much.

Why do you want to unconstitutionally force your opinion upon Georgians?

To be clear the opinion on this of everyone not being a voter in Georgia is worth the same (nothing).

A new Yorker and an Italian are both completely irrelevant for that, and their opinions have the same validity.

Other Americans not living in Georgia should learn some civics and understand it's none of their business it's like it happened in Mongolia or Indonesia, it's not their polity, you are a federation of states which are independent on this topic and many others.

At least it wasn't a book, then imagine the horror...

Back in the 1970's in the US they made it illegal for people under 21 to drink alcohol, as a national law. The reason for the law was to prevent deaths caused by drunk drivers under the age of 21 (which at the time was significant and much higher than for those over 21). And the result was a significant reduction in deaths caused by drunk drivers.

If it were made illegal for people under 21 to own guns it might help reduce the number of school shootings in high schools and middle schools. If this were done at the national level then it would mean that each state wouldn't have to deal with it on their own, especially difficult in deep red states. Even if the law was that it was illegal for people under 20 or 19 to own guns it would help reduce shootings in schools. I prefer the 21 limit which would also possibly help reduce shootings in colleges.

The other thing to make clear in that type of law would be that if the parents of someone under 21 allowed their child access to a gun that was used in a murder/shooting then they would also be held accountable for that shooting.

This would not eliminate school shootings nor would it prevent kids from obtaining guns but it would likely significantly reduce school shootings.

I get that a significant portion of our military consists of people under 21. And I would have no problem with an exception to the law applying to people who had served 2 years in our military. Maybe that would be a reason to make it 20 rather than 21.

Point made, but it's just a bit hyperbolic. If a kid happens to get in a drunk driving accident, there's a different level of culpability between a parent who bought them alcohol as contrasted to a parent who has alcohol in the house that the kid stole. There are differences between a parent who...

A) Gives their kid a gun
B) Owns a gun and forgets to lock it up
C) Owns a gun and keeps it in a safe that their kid manages to break into

I don't know what laws currently say about these things or what Mr Rick specifically means when he says "allows access to," but those the details can discussed.

There should be a national law that requires guns to be locked in homes that have children. Currently there are only 11 states that have laws like this.

If a parent has a safe that a kid manages to break into, I don't think you can hold them accountable for participation in a murder or attempted murder. Unless they gave the safe combination to their child. More likely they forgot to lock the safe or never put the gun in the safe and that is hard to prove (but should be unacceptable).

Things like I am saying are ways to reduce murders in the country. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I just don't get why right wing fanatics like bahbah think it is more important to make fun of people who care about other people's lives rather than look at the disaster this country has become for people who have children in schools.

When I went to grade school in NYC in the 1960's we had drills where we would hide under our desks in case a nuclear bomb went off (and yes we also had drills where we would go into the basement). It was so out of context that we weren't scared because it basically wasn't going to happen and if it did we were all going to die anyway regardless of what we did (nuclear fallout if not the explosion itself). But in today's schools they are having drills that the kids are terrified of because it brings to the present something they are all scared of to begin with.

Ah yes, who can forget the tried and tested "duck and cover" method of protecting yourself from a nuclear explosion.

That would allow the state to enter your home to check, so no. It's enough to have laws that a posteriori judge you guilty as a parent if after a crime is committed with a gun you owned, by minor people in your household, you are found to have left the gun easily accessible.

Which btw is what allows to prosecute parents in this cases *already*