I say we arm our teachers now.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm ... I'd personally label a bully a "coward" and their victim "scared", but that's my tuppence worth.

[Tied2thetracks]

Whats the problem of putting weapons in the hands of trained security at schools. I'm not saying arm students. All the recent crap that has happened makes me a firm believer that there should be an amed person at every school grades 6-12.

[EvilNed]

Because guns hurt people. They're not a defensive tool, they are an offensive tool. Arming teachers or providing security guards for school only makes it a less pleasant enviroment to study in, and doesn't solve any problems whatsoever. It only adds to them.

[Tied2thetracks]

Alot of kids/people admit that they shoot people not because of outside influences, but because of the availability of guns. Someone should probably look into that, rather than providing a temporary solution. So we should take guns away from responsible citizens? You want to go the only criminals should have guns route I see. WI is hunting grounds,98% are responsible gun owners.( I base that statistic on nothing really) We dont have alot of gun violence. "Because guns hurt people. They're not a defensive tool, they are an offensive tool. Arming teachers or providing security guards for school only makes it a less pleasant enviroment to study in, and doesn't solve any problems whatsoever. It only adds to them." Guns in the PROPER hands are a defensive tool. Would you feel safer if the police didn't carry weapons? If you lived in colorado would you think armed security would make you feel less safe? If you lived in Green Bay WI where kids were making nepalm would armed security make you feel less safe? The safer I am the happier I am. More than likely these troubled kids know their plot won't suceed the more likely they will be not to try it.

[EvilNed]

All that is well and good, but how can you explain the fact that every single nation that has a gun ban manages to it A) keep it under control and B) Have a homocide rate by gun reduced to a minimum? Guns are a problem. Your suggestion would be one huge leap in the wrong freaking direction. Guns at a school? That's seriously one of the most ****ed up things I've ever heard.

[FoodFight]

Presently in the U.S. there is a 1000 foot boundary surrounding all schools wherein guns are prohibited. Obviously criminals aren't abiding by said federal law, and in the incident in Pearl, MS some years ago, neither did the principal. He ran to his vehicle which was off of school property, retrieved and loaded his weapon, ran back to the school and detained the shooter for over four minutes before the authorites (i.e. those who are allowed to carry firearms on campus) could respond. How many lives did the principal save? Who knows. Criminals will always seek soft targets, and in an area that is federally mandated to be defenseless, criminals will always be in evidence.

[Tied2thetracks]

All that is well and good, but how can you explain the fact that every single nation that has a gun ban manages to it A) keep it under control and B) Have a homocide rate by gun reduced to a minimum? Guns are a problem. Your suggestion would be one huge leap in the wrong freaking direction. Guns at a school? That's seriously one of the most ****ed up things I've ever heard. ...but guns aren't going away. This country will not and should not give up its gun rights. If we have a liason officer (cop assigned to a school) that would be a mistake? It would be a deterant, it would be an immediate response to an attack. Your heart is in the right place, not sure about your head though.

[EvilNed]

...but guns aren't going away. This country will not and should not give up its gun rights. Then you're ****ed to begin with.

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, with America so "big" on guns, you can't solve the problem anymore by a ban, at best some stringent control ... but put simply, (and this is speaking in general - I'm fed up of having to clarify things), guns kill people and it's shown quite plain and simple in statistics. America and their guns have a climate of fear peddled to them daily, while no-gun nations like Canada don't peddle fear on a daily basis...now the UK is somewhere in between. All our news is bad news, but we don't have guns. There are plenty of guns in the country (illegally), but you'll only find these in the urban crime centers where gang violence is on the rise through, among other things, social disaffection. Would I feel safer carrying a gun? Erm, no. You can't outrun a bullet, but you can outrun a knife or a bat and you can duck a punch. You'd be more likely to survive the average sh*t-beating than the average drive-by. I can understand why people like guns and own them, they like to hunt and practice target shooting ... and of course, it makes you feel powerful ... but it's a freedom that comes with a very costly price. I'm glad the UK doesn't have guns in the general populace ... only the police have them (merely some of the time though) and serious criminals who have gotten them via the underground - but you can get everything via the underground, so there's no shocking statistic there. All this "no guns in the UK" thing just makes me marvel even more at our coppers on the streets who go into battle with thugs armed with a stick and maybe some mace ... that's pretty freakin' hard, eyeball-to-eyeball with the criminal, rather than ten feet back, behind your car door with a gun pulled... Not really putting myself on either side of the gun debate, but just thought I'd chip in a tuppence worth of thoughts...