Gun control is not the American way!

We are at an impasse I doubt we , as a country, will recover from. The lines are clearly drawn. The gun nuts want MORE guns, to "protect" themselves, and anti-gun nuts, want all guns abolished. Raising the age limit is pure foolishness, most of these "gunmen"( not too many "gunwomen") get these weapons through illegal means, heck, my nephew BUILT an AK47 from parts off the innernet[sic]. The age limit is just a distraction for the real issue, to eliminate all guns, and that will never happen. Gun nuts will shoot their way out, rather than give them up. There is no solution. This hogwash, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", is such a cop out. Guns, however they are gotten, give an unstable person a way to carry out their "missions", and all the background checks in the world won't identify it. Naturally, I'm anti-gun, and cringe at every shooting, that seems to be a daily thing. As a country with these attitudes, it's going to get a lot worse before better, if ever.

 

I'm trying to figure out why we don't have armed security at every school in the country. May not stop all the school shootings, but if it stops one, well it's worth it.

We send billions overseas to countries that would love to kill us, but we can't afford to pay a security guard to protect our kids? It's ludicrous

 

Agreed. Have a single entry point with an armed guard or a LEO.

 

Most schools do have armed resources officers. They don't stop school shootings.

There is extremely limited evidence on the effectiveness of SROs in deterring violence. There is no empirical support for the suggestion that SROs prevent school shootings.[lvii] Research on averted school shootings – incidents planned by students and then prevented – suggests that the key is having trusted adults whom other students can inform.[lviii]
The Prevalence and the Price of Police in Schools
​

Since Columbine in 1999, there have been 197 school shootings where armed SROs were present. They only successfully intervened in 3 of them. Schools with armed SROs tend to have twice the casualty rate.

 

It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be, you do not lose your constitutional rights based on location but you may have them restricted by voluntarily entering private property or told to leave.
An example would be going to a anti-gun rally held in a private venue and inquiring about how many rapes, assaults and murders armed victims stoped. Now you have the right under the 1st amendment to say what you please but they have the right to ask you to leave private property.

In Utah its a little different with the 2nd amendment. You are legally allowed to have a firearm on a companies property as long as it is secured in a automobile and the company has no right to prevent you from doing so. But the building is different, thay may ban firearms inside. If you break their policies you can't be charged with a crime. But as soon as they tell you to leave you must or you're trespassing and you can be arrested for that.
Now a OTR driver is in an awful gray area.
Even though a driver may call a truck home for weeks or even months at a time the courts have decided it is not a home, so if an employer says no guns while inside their equipment, then no guns in their equipment.

I personally believe that if a company requires you to relinquish your ability to defend yourself then they should be civilly liable for your protection.

I'll never understand how banning law abiding people from owning firearms stops criminals from getting guns. Is it the one law that they just won't break?

I know women who have sacred off a rapist because they were armed. They weren't raped and they didn't shoot the guy so the most the police put down on a report is the possibility of a assault. Self protection is severely under reported.

This hasn't been said in this thread yet but often I've heard that if you are pro 2nd amendment then you are pro school shootings. If that is true than it would also be true that if you're anti 2nd amendment you are pro rape. Think how absurd that is.

 

Ukraine is is our friend so we arm them
Russia is our enemy so we disarm them
The President wants to disarm the law abiding citizens.
At least he is letting us know where we stand.

 

From the perspective of a Canadian:

We don't have shootings to near the extent America has them. We need to go through a multi-day training course and background/character witness checks before we're granted a license. Anyone who intends to harm someone else would never qualify for the license. Therefore, any attempt to restrict access to firearms is essentially an attack on the law-abiding citizen.

As you see here, the more they push to ban firearms, the more you'll see the following type of scenario. Criminals will be armed regardless. Even if they have to manufacture them.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5399233