Is it because the nation was born out of a victim complex?

There is a difference between either/or and both/and, the latter of which applies in the present case.

The argument from self defense is false. That merely states you are allowed to repel force with force. It has exactly zero to say about gun ownership. If a society allows guns, then guns can be used in self defense.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/american-teacher-cant-wait-show-off-anti-terror-muscle-memory-school-shooter/

If I were still in teaching and some arsehole told me to carry a gun, I'd tell them where to stick it. Militarising schools is not the solution to gun violence, less guns is. Someone please tell the children who run America that.

Now, there are at least two ways to read the Constitution - or any document. — tim wood

There is one way to interpret the Constitution - by looking up the quotes of the founding fathers (the authors of the document) that relate to and explain their own reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” - George Washington First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

If I were still in teaching and some arsehole told me to carry a gun, I'd tell them where to stick it. Militarising schools is not the solution to gun violence, less guns is. Someone please tell the children who run America that. — Baden

Less guns in schools actually is one of the problems. Gun-free zones are where these kinds of attacks take place, which is why you have to wait for the police (more guns) to show up to handle the problem.

I don't see you arguing for less guns in banks. Has there ever been a problem there? Then why would you think having armed guards in schools a problem? We don't arm the bank tellers and so I'm not agreeing with arming teachers. I'm just saying to have trained guards at schools.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'm glad you don't disagree with me concerning the perverse suggestion that teachers should be armed. Extra security at schools including the possible employment of armed guards is a different issue, and seems a less objectionable proposal on the surface for obvious reasons though I still don't agree with it. I'd rather we stop treating the symptoms and start treating the cause. There's a fairly simple equation at work here—the more guns there are in a given environment, the more often they get used, and the more often innocent people get killed through their use, both accidentally and purposefully.

I don't see you arguing for less guns in banks. Has there ever been a problem there? — Harry Hindu

Yes, the problem is more people getting killed, so you're wrong to think I wouldn't argue for that. I'd rather bank robbers take the money, leave, and then be pursued by the police (armed if necessary) than that they get involved in shootouts with armed guards and risk killing customers in the crossfire. Obviously, the more armed the guards are, the more armed the criminals will tend to be, and the more potential there is for violence. And it's not as if it's preventative. Which is why we don't have armed guards in banks in Ireland, for example, and we have less robberies and less people getting killed in robberies. So, apart from this being common sense, it works. But just research it yourself.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/fbi-bank-robbery-data-shows-armed-guards-increase-risk-of-violence/

"Research [shows] that...the presence of defensive weapons creates a greater risk of violence
...In an environment like this, arming guards in all locations is premature. Even in locations where robberies do occur, the presence of a guard increases the likelihood of violence and injury."

Introduction to private security - John Dempsey

"According to the FBI, the simple presence of any on-site weapon automatically increases the potential risk of violence. When a Security Guard is armed on the job, the potential threat of violence automatically increases yet again..."

https://www.eldoradoinsurance.com/security-industry-news/security-guard-violence-trends/

(Insurance company).

"Many people perceive armed security officers favorably as a deterrent against violence and an assurance that a violent incident can be quickly quelled. From a client's ... The presence of an additional firearm—even in an officer's hands—only stands to increase the risk of casualties."

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Guns-and-Security-The-Risks-of-Arming-Security-Officers.aspx

(Security management company).

The idea that the way to solve the problem of violence is to increase the means of carrying it out is completely wrong no matter how selectively you try to apply the principle. And the attitude of looking to guns as being a solution to anything rather than simply a menace we'd all be better off without is very culturally specific to the U.S. The weight of empirical evidence shows that a less armed society at every level (apart from military defence) is a safer and more secure society. There is nothing to fall back on for the gun lovers except their love for their guns and a bunch of irrational attempts at justification that fall apart even on a very basic analysis.

So here's a study that might interest some.

What I found rather shocking though was the unwillingness of government even to compile statistics on mass shootings or to fund studies.

To further the understanding of the underlying root causes of these events, and to confirm whether or not contagion truly plays a role, an official comprehensive detailed, accurate, and publicly available federal database of incidents of all mass killings and school shootings in the US is necessary. A database that includes, at a minimum, details on the background events, mental health status and access to mental health treatment of the perpetrators, exactly what kinds of weapons were used, where the perpetrators obtained their weapons, and whether they did so legally or illegally. Several studies of firearm violence over the past decade have pointed out the need for such a database (see, for instance, References [46, 47]). For the time being, while waiting for such a database to become available, studies such as this must use what data are available, paying attention to cross-checks of the robustness of the modeling methodology to potential biases, as we have attempted to do here.

Studies into the prevention of such tragedies are also hampered by the freeze on federal funding for research into gun violence in the United States, put in place by Congress in 1997 [48, 49]. In January, 2013, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to resume studies into firearm violence. However, at the time of this writing in September 2014, the majority of members of Congress have vowed to continue to block allocation of federal funding to the studies. In the near term it thus appears that federal legislation will not be put forward to address the need for the documentation and detailed study of such events.

There's none so blind as they who will not see. But I have hope that minds will change and that argument and appeal is worth the effort.

Studies into the prevention of such tragedies are also hampered by the freeze on federal funding for research into gun violence in the United States, put in place by Congress in 1997 [48, 49]. In January, 2013, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to resume studies into firearm violence. However, at the time of this writing in September 2014, the majority of members of Congress have vowed to continue to block allocation of federal funding to the studies.

What possible rationale is there for this?

It's the Dickey Amendment.

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association

Well there's a surprise.

Dickey has since said that he regrets his role in stopping the CDC from researching gun violence, saying he simply didn't want to "let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy."

So it was introduced because they were afraid that gun control advocates are right?

"There is no scientific evidence that..."

QED.

:vomit:

Surely a 'civil society' is one in which you're not required to carry deadly weapons on the grounds that you're frightened that the person next to you might be doing so.

There are places that, should I be obliged to reside there, I would probably want to have a gun for defensive reasons, for example, Port Moresby. A friend recently travelled to a marine expedition was was embarking from that port, and his vehicle from the airport to his secure compound was escorted by armed guards from the prosaically-named 'Attack Dog Security'. He had had to receive a detailed briefing on personal conduct for the 36 hours he was to be in transit in Port Moresby. So there, you might want a gun. Even an AR-15.

But surely, in the 'land of the free', the fact that armed guards in schools is being seriously contemplated, is an indication of a breakdown in civil order - the basic fact that civilized behaviour is under threat in what is supposed to be the most advanced democracy in the modern world.

Despite all the obfuscation and politicking, if you can't see the threat that this represents, then you're not seeing it right.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Deputy at Florida high school where 17 were killed 'never went in,' resigns

Israel said that Deputy Scott Peterson was outside of the building during the time of the shooting. According to Israel, video evidence suggested that Peterson remained outside for four minutes. The entire mass shooting lasted an estimated six minutes, Israel said.

"Scott Peterson was absolutely on campus through this entire event," Israel said. "He was armed, he was in uniform.

Do you think that he should have gone in? I don't know much about police policy, but is a single man supposed to go alone in the case of a shooter, or is he supposed to wait for backup?

And if this deputy chose not to engage the shooter, what are the odds that a teacher wouldn't choose to engage a shooter? For all this talk about arming people in schools, how many are actually going to confront the attacker rather than just try to hide?

Arming teachers is the most moronic idea I have heard of. It's been a decade since high school for me, but I would not want my frail, 70+ mathematics teacher wielding a gun. Besides, having guns in certain classrooms means that they are accessible to students. It's such a ludicrous, backward idea; essentially demonstrating that gun rights activists lack any substantive arguments, and are just grasping at straws.

Of course the only answer is to give guns to all the students.

I quite liked the suggestion, made elsewhere, that the solution is to ban schools to protect guns. I think that would be reasonable. After all, only one of these things is protected by the constitution, and when push comes to shove...

Personally I find it unpleasant to think about living in a society where everybody is encouraged to hold guns to feel secure, and if I happen to leave it at home when going to the supermarket one day, I'm supposed to feel uncomfortable about it because I'm at a disadvantage. Maybe that's just silly me.

It's not just you, it's objectively stupid. Nothing more than NRA propaganda to 1) get more people to purchase guns, and 2) defend 2A. There are endless problems with the idea....

My thinking is it's not just about guns, but how American Conservatives think about the notion of security in general.

"The leftover consequences on other people is unfortunate but it has nothing to do with me. I have the right to fend for myself, and we should celebrate those rights. Why should I take on risk for the misbehavior of others?"

It's not about the collective but the individual. You see this kind of rhetoric all the time when it comes to military spending and intervention, not wanting to pay taxes so others that are less fortunate can be taken care of, not wanting to let refugees in, and so on. I suspect there is some rough parallel to that which prevents communication regarding guns, there is a fundamental difference in values.

It's not about the collective but the individual. — Saphsin

Indeed, the absence of a sense of common wealth isn part of the USA's problem.

I'm a gun owning American (liberal/moderate, I suppose.) Maybe I can add some perspective. I would rather live in a society where I would never need a gun. Arguably I don't need the one I have. It mostly sits in the same place, just in case. And I surely don't want the legal trouble or the publicity that would come with using it.

On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. The anti-gun argument tends to ignore that criminals aren't going to obey gun laws. I don't relish the idea of being a soft target in a society where only the police and the criminals have guns and not law abiding citizens. I happen to fear criminals more than the state, and I don't especially fear violent crime (I'm more likely to be smashed by some texting teenager's Toyota). Nevertheless, the idea of being threatened in my own home without recourse is sufficiently odious to me that I'd miss my 'nuclear option' if it were no longer there.

One of the first victims identified among the 17 people killed was Aaron Feis, an assistant football coach and security guard. Feis was shot after reportedly throwing himself in front of students during the rampage.