National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[webfact]

NRA calls for armed guards in schools

WASHINGTON: -- The powerful US gun rights lobby went on the offensive on Friday, arguing that schools should have armed guards, on a day that Americans remembered the victims of the Connecticut school massacre with a moment of silence.

National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre argued that attempts to keep guns out of schools were ineffective and made schools more vulnerable than airports, banks and other public buildings patrolled by armed guards.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre told a news briefing, calling on lawmakers to station armed police officers in all schools by the time children return from the Christmas break in January.

Referring to the 20-year-old who entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14 and killed 26 people - 20 of them children aged 6 and 7 - with a semi-automatic assault rifle, LaPierre added: "Does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?"

LaPierre's remarks, in which he charged that the news media and violent video games shared blame for the second-deadliest school shooting in US history, were twice interrupted by protesters who unfurled signs and shouted "stop the killing".

Full story: http://www.smh.com.a...1222-2bs8t.html

-- The Sydney Morning Herald 2012-12-22

[Bwanatickey]

Beggars belief. NRA are not doing themselves any favours. Is this a war zone? Who is the enemy?

[MrRealDeal]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

[JUDAS]

Sounds remarkably similar to southern Thailand.

[carmine]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

Ever been to Canada?

Guess what, they have strict gun laws as we do in the UK. Now run along and check the statistics. The 2nd ammenment needs to be changed

With views yours i can only presume that it will be but a matter of time until the next massacre.

[Credo]

Sounds remarkably similar to southern Thailand.

No, Judas, it doesn't sound like Southern Thailand. In the South, it is the government employees, including teachers, who are targeted. I believe that students are reasonably safe.

The fallacy with the NRA statement is that most schools are probably reasonably safe, and most reasonable efforts, such as locked doors, glass doors that can't be easily broken and accessed and accountability of who enters the building should be enough. There will always be nutters and the best way to protect from them is to get them off the streets and away from anything lethal.

The nutters will next target the parking lot, or special activities etc.

If I had to chose, I would rather be a student in the South of Thailand and a teacher in the US, as far as safety goes.

[gl555]

There are 300 million guns in circulation in the USA. The bad guys are always going to be able to find guns unless they ban guns 100% and destroy every gun out there. I very much the government will do that.

So why not have armed guards at schools? Crazies are not stupid. You never hear of massacres at a police station do you? They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones. Psychos and criminals aren't going to follow the rules and not attack 'no gun zones'.

[Orac]

Given that a nutter with a gun managed to kill 13 and injure 29 on a US military not so long ago which I assume had one or two armed guards about I am not sure how effective this solution would be. Any self respecting nutter would obviously target an armed guard first you would think.

[Songhua]

I'm on the fence. At least the kiddies will only have to witness someone being killed rather than being shot themselves.

[submaniac]

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. There's 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. There are 150 million of us gun owners in the United States. "Ridding" the U.S. of guns is simply not going to happen. There's too many of us.

Some of us happen to support the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

I love how people who are not from the United States, don't live in the United States, and have no connection with the United States like to spout their opinions of what United States laws should be. If you do not like the laws of the United States then don't come to the United States.

[JUDAS]

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. There's 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. There are 150 million of us gun owners in the United States. "Ridding" the U.S. of guns is simply not going to happen. There's too many of us.

Some of us happen to support the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

I love how people who are not from the United States, don't live in the United States, and have no connection with the United States like to spout their opinions of what United States laws should be. If you do not like the laws of the United States then don't come to the United States.

Come on sub. I read a lot of your posts and find them usually well balanced and thought out. Are you really saying only those who live in or visit the USA can have an opinion on US laws. You've never posted an opinion on another countries laws apart from the USA / Thailand?

It's a fact of life that the USA, as the world's most powerful and influential nation has domestic laws which can and do have an international impact. It's not as if all guns sold within America actually remain there.

[Chicog]

It was a great press conference - for an organisation called http://codepink.org/ . I'm guessing these pictures will be in every newspaper and on every screen in the US (and they were around the world on Al Jazeera, BBC World and Sky to name but three).

[gl555]

Banning guns would work. No one has guns, no one gets shot. Problem is there's no way they're ever going to have a 100% ban on guns in America. So they put up some half assed gun control laws which never work because bad guys don't follow the law!

I read about how brave the teachers who died that day were. How Vicki Soto and others gave their lives protecting their students. They must have really loved their kids to do that.

Now imagine if they had a gun in their hand on that day. I have no doubt one of them would have put a few rounds in that psycho and probably saved some lives.

Edited December 22, 2012 by gl555

[cooked]

I am a criminal madman and I want a job as armed guard in a school.

The second amendment was about maintaining an armed militia in America at a time when the standing army was very small.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

The first words concern the maintenance of the militia. it is not about allowing lax licensing of guns in some states to anyone that walks in. Nor about selling huge amounts of ammunition for assault rifles to individuals.

The Swiss militia has been much reduced in the last years but every member has an assault weapon under his bed or somewhere. No ammunition.

If the USA were to follow the second amendment out to the letter, people would be walking about with assault weapons on their backs, seems to be what a lot of people would like, because they are the good guys.

[gl555]

I am a criminal madman and I want a job as armed guard in a school.

The second amendment was about maintaining an armed militia in America at a time when the standing army was very small.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

The first words concern the maintenance of the militia. it is not about allowing lax licensing of guns in some states to anyone that walks in. Nor about selling huge amounts of ammunition for assault rifles to individuals.

The Swiss militia has been much reduced in the last years but every member has an assault weapon under his bed or somewhere. No ammunition.

If the USA were to follow the second amendment out to the letter, people would be walking about with assault weapons on their backs, seems to be what a lot of people would like, because they are the good guys.

The Swiss are also among the highest in the world in terms of gun ownership(and I don't think this number includes the militia provided assault rifle). And yet, they don't seem to have any gun massacres.

There's something wrong about America with all these killings and its unfair to blame it solely on gun ownership and the NRA.

Edited December 22, 2012 by gl555

[DocN]

Isn't that the kind of "police state" the right wing nutters are all so afraid off?

Oh no...it is their own crazy people, who guard schools with guns...and malls with guns...and football- matches with guns...and cinemas with guns....

Here is a little thought experiment: Sandy Hook...the guy takes a GUN, from HIS MOTHERS HOUSE...puts on a BULLET- PROOF VEST....and thanks to MOMS SHOOTING TRAINING, takes out the 2 guards from a distance...then set out on his killing spree!

What then???

Armed neighborhood patrol?

24/7?

But guess what: the crazy guy STILL had the bullet- proof vest. So...he takes out the neighborhood watch from a distance (remember? he can shoot, thanks to the loonie mother! ) and goes on a killing spree as planned!

What then???

When will you FINALLY accept, that no gun, no guard, will guarantee safety?

He could even take the guards out and steal their guns!

But having his mom denied the guns, on the basis of stricter laws and background checks, would have made it more difficult for him, to get the hands on the guns! is that so hard to understand?

No gun- sales at gun -shows, no second- hand gun dealing to UNCHECKED and UNLICENSED people...might have done the trick!

No,no....you need MORE guns!

Another thought- experiment:

100 people on a lonely island....1 gun! Probability of gun accidents: low!

100 people on a lonely island...50 guns! Probability of gun accident: high!

100 people on a lonely island...100 guns! ...figure it out!

It DOESN'T WORK the other way around!

It is called "logical thinking"!

[DocN]

I am a criminal madman and I want a job as armed guard in a school.

The second amendment was about maintaining an armed militia in America at a time when the standing army was very small.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

The first words concern the maintenance of the militia. it is not about allowing lax licensing of guns in some states to anyone that walks in. Nor about selling huge amounts of ammunition for assault rifles to individuals.

The Swiss militia has been much reduced in the last years but every member has an assault weapon under his bed or somewhere. No ammunition.

If the USA were to follow the second amendment out to the letter, people would be walking about with assault weapons on their backs, seems to be what a lot of people would like, because they are the good guys.

Actually every member of the Swiss militia has an assault rifle AND a box of sealed ammo. The Swiss are also among the highest in the world in terms of gun ownership(and I don't think this number includes the militia provided assault rifle). And yet, they don't seem to have any gun massacres.

There's something wrong about America with all these killings and its unfair to blame it solely on gun ownership and the NRA.

Of course it is wrong, to blame it ONLY on gun- ownership and the NRA.

What you need in the USA is an education and a media that free of fear- mongering, religious fanatism, and more education...and even more education.

But you have to start with something.

Education will take some time to kick in.

Until then...gun laws! Strict! Enforced!

But we hear it already, right!

Edited December 22, 2012 by Rimmer
Racist rant

[gl555]

Isn't that the kind of "police state" the right wing nutters are all so afraid off?

Oh no...it is their own crazy people, who guard schools with guns...and malls with guns...and football- matches with guns...and cinemas with guns....

Here is a little thought experiment: Sandy Hook...the guy takes a GUN, from HIS MOTHERS HOUSE...puts on a BULLET- PROOF VEST....and thanks to MOMS SHOOTING TRAINING, takes out the 2 guards from a distance...then set out on his killing spree!

What then???

Armed neighborhood patrol?

24/7?

But guess what: the crazy guy STILL had the bullet- proof vest. So...he takes out the neighborhood watch from a distance (remember? he can shoot, thanks to the loonie mother! ) and goes on a killing spree as planned!

What then???

When will you FINALLY accept, that no gun, no guard, will guarantee safety?

He could even take the guards out and steal their guns!

But having his mom denied the guns, on the basis of stricter laws and background checks, would have made it more difficult for him, to get the hands on the guns! is that so hard to understand?

No gun- sales at gun -shows, no second- hand gun dealing to UNCHECKED and UNLICENSED people...might have done the trick!

No,no....you need MORE guns!

Another thought- experiment:

100 people on a lonely island....1 gun! Probability of gun accidents: low!

100 people on a lonely island...50 guns! Probability of gun accident: high!

100 people on a lonely island...100 guns! ...figure it out!

It DOESN'T WORK the other way around!

It is called "logical thinking"!

Do you think the US government has the will to pass a law that will ban ALL guns in the land? And if they did, big if there, would the ATF have the resources to go out there and take out the estimated 300 million guns in circulation?

The law worked in this case. Crazy guy tried to buy a gun but the law prevented him from getting one legally. So he killed his mother and stole her's. Now even if his mother didn't have any guns, with 300 million guns out there, I'm pretty sure he would have easily gotten one to carry out his massacre.

[Potosi]

So why not have armed guards at schools? Crazies are not stupid. You never hear of massacres at a police station do you? They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones. Psychos and criminals aren't going to follow the rules and not attack 'no gun zones'.

Haven't you watched 'The Terminator'? Crazies are not stupid indeed. They just start with the armed guard, and have one more gun.

[gl555]

So why not have armed guards at schools? Crazies are not stupid. You never hear of massacres at a police station do you? They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones. Psychos and criminals aren't going to follow the rules and not attack 'no gun zones'.

Haven't you watched 'The Terminator'? Crazies are not stupid indeed. They just start with the armed guard, and have one more gun.

You're right. Having a single guard isn't perfect but it sure beats having no guard at all.

[DocN]

Isn't that the kind of "police state" the right wing nutters are all so afraid off?

Oh no...it is their own crazy people, who guard schools with guns...and malls with guns...and football- matches with guns...and cinemas with guns....

Here is a little thought experiment: Sandy Hook...the guy takes a GUN, from HIS MOTHERS HOUSE...puts on a BULLET- PROOF VEST....and thanks to MOMS SHOOTING TRAINING, takes out the 2 guards from a distance...then set out on his killing spree!

What then???

Armed neighborhood patrol?

24/7?

But guess what: the crazy guy STILL had the bullet- proof vest. So...he takes out the neighborhood watch from a distance (remember? he can shoot, thanks to the loonie mother! ) and goes on a killing spree as planned!

What then???

When will you FINALLY accept, that no gun, no guard, will guarantee safety?

He could even take the guards out and steal their guns!

But having his mom denied the guns, on the basis of stricter laws and background checks, would have made it more difficult for him, to get the hands on the guns! is that so hard to understand?

No gun- sales at gun -shows, no second- hand gun dealing to UNCHECKED and UNLICENSED people...might have done the trick!

No,no....you need MORE guns!

Another thought- experiment:

100 people on a lonely island....1 gun! Probability of gun accidents: low!

100 people on a lonely island...50 guns! Probability of gun accident: high!

100 people on a lonely island...100 guns! ...figure it out!

It DOESN'T WORK the other way around!

It is called "logical thinking"!

Do you think the US government has the will to pass a law that will ban ALL guns in the land? And if they did, big if there, would the ATF have the resources to go out there and take out the estimated 300 million guns in circulation?

The law worked in this case. Crazy guy tried to buy a gun but the law prevented him from getting one legally. So he killed his mother and stole her's. Now even if his mother didn't have any guns, with 300 million guns out there, I'm pretty sure he would have easily gotten one to carry out his massacre.

I am not even ASKING for them to ban all guns!

Never did!

Just control, who can have them and why they want/ need them.

[cooked]

I am a criminal madman and I want a job as armed guard in a school.

The second amendment was about maintaining an armed militia in America at a time when the standing army was very small.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

The first words concern the maintenance of the militia. it is not about allowing lax licensing of guns in some states to anyone that walks in. Nor about selling huge amounts of ammunition for assault rifles to individuals.

The Swiss militia has been much reduced in the last years but every member has an assault weapon under his bed or somewhere. No ammunition.

If the USA were to follow the second amendment out to the letter, people would be walking about with assault weapons on their backs, seems to be what a lot of people would like, because they are the good guys.

The Swiss are also among the highest in the world in terms of gun ownership(and I don't think this number includes the militia provided assault rifle). And yet, they don't seem to have any gun massacres.

There's something wrong about America with all these killings and its unfair to blame it solely on gun ownership and the NRA.

We had a gun massacre in 2001, the legislative in Kanton Zug was attacked by a guy, 14 legislators killed. In answer to another poster, the Swiss militia do NOT, since 2007, have ammunition at home. 53 homicides in 2010, 40 due to guns. With a population of 7 million, this would be the equivalent of about 2400 homicides a year in the USA. Not the 16 000 that they have now.

[gl555]

Isn't that the kind of "police state" the right wing nutters are all so afraid off?

Oh no...it is their own crazy people, who guard schools with guns...and malls with guns...and football- matches with guns...and cinemas with guns....

Here is a little thought experiment: Sandy Hook...the guy takes a GUN, from HIS MOTHERS HOUSE...puts on a BULLET- PROOF VEST....and thanks to MOMS SHOOTING TRAINING, takes out the 2 guards from a distance...then set out on his killing spree!

What then???

Armed neighborhood patrol?

24/7?

But guess what: the crazy guy STILL had the bullet- proof vest. So...he takes out the neighborhood watch from a distance (remember? he can shoot, thanks to the loonie mother! ) and goes on a killing spree as planned!

What then???

When will you FINALLY accept, that no gun, no guard, will guarantee safety?

He could even take the guards out and steal their guns!

But having his mom denied the guns, on the basis of stricter laws and background checks, would have made it more difficult for him, to get the hands on the guns! is that so hard to understand?

No gun- sales at gun -shows, no second- hand gun dealing to UNCHECKED and UNLICENSED people...might have done the trick!

No,no....you need MORE guns!

Another thought- experiment:

100 people on a lonely island....1 gun! Probability of gun accidents: low!

100 people on a lonely island...50 guns! Probability of gun accident: high!

100 people on a lonely island...100 guns! ...figure it out!

It DOESN'T WORK the other way around!

It is called "logical thinking"!

Do you think the US government has the will to pass a law that will ban ALL guns in the land? And if they did, big if there, would the ATF have the resources to go out there and take out the estimated 300 million guns in circulation?

The law worked in this case. Crazy guy tried to buy a gun but the law prevented him from getting one legally. So he killed his mother and stole her's. Now even if his mother didn't have any guns, with 300 million guns out there, I'm pretty sure he would have easily gotten one to carry out his massacre.

I am not even ASKING for them to ban all guns!

Never did!

Just control, who can have them and why they want/ need them.

I understand you're not. But I personally believe that the only way to stop this violence is to ban all guns. In between half assed gun control laws don't work. I read somewhere they actually managed to ban all hand guns in a city but gun crimes actually went up! Why? Simple because criminals don't follow the law! Unless there is a total ban and they take out of circulation the 300 million guns, gun control laws won't work. You may prevent a potential crazy or criminal from purchasing one but with so many guns out there, he can easily get one illegally. As I already said, in this case, this fella tried to buy a gun but was denied. So he killed someone he knew had them and stole them.

[lomatopo]

They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones.

And shopping malls, movie theaters, colleges, post offices. I think most would agree that it would be impossible to secure all locations where troubled souls might choose to commit mass murder?

It is ironic that one thing the gun nuts fear is the government becoming too powerful, yet the N.R.A. is proposing expanding the role of the police state.

Hard to believe this is the best the N.R.A. could come up with? OK, maybe not.

Up until 1977 the N.R.A. supported firearms legislation.

[gl555]

They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones.

And shopping malls, movie theaters, colleges, post offices. I think most would agree that it would be impossible to secure all locations where troubled souls might choose to commit mass murder?

It is ironic that one thing the gun nuts fear is the government becoming too powerful, yet the N.R.A. is proposing expanding the role of the police state.

Hard to believe this is the best the N.R.A. could come up with? OK, maybe not.

Up until 1977 the N.R.A. supported firearms legislation.

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

[lomatopo]

They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones.

And shopping malls, movie theaters, colleges, post offices. I think most would agree that it would be impossible to secure all locations where troubled souls might choose to commit mass murder?

It is ironic that one thing the gun nuts fear is the government becoming too powerful, yet the N.R.A. is proposing expanding the role of the police state.

Hard to believe this is the best the N.R.A. could come up with? OK, maybe not.

Up until 1977 the N.R.A. supported firearms legislation.

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

Maybe you could present some facts rather than asking people to Google?

One fairly detailed analysis I found indicated that, "... attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer." and that, "...An investigation by Mother Jones concluded that no more than 1.6 percent of mass shootings were ended by armed civilians." and "...Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders."

More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?

America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_interventions.html

[gl555]

They always soft targets like schools which are no gun zones.

And shopping malls, movie theaters, colleges, post offices. I think most would agree that it would be impossible to secure all locations where troubled souls might choose to commit mass murder?

It is ironic that one thing the gun nuts fear is the government becoming too powerful, yet the N.R.A. is proposing expanding the role of the police state.

Hard to believe this is the best the N.R.A. could come up with? OK, maybe not.

Up until 1977 the N.R.A. supported firearms legislation.

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

Maybe you could present some facts rather than asking people to Google?

One fairly detailed analysis I found indicated that, "... attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer." and that, "...An investigation by Mother Jones concluded that no more than 1.6 percent of mass shootings were ended by armed civilians." and "...Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders."

More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?

America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers.

http://www.slate.com...erventions.html

Alright here are just a few examples of potential massacres that were stopped because of an armed citizen.

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed-carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

And the most recent which was virtually unreported. There are some interesting statistics and reports right at the end of the article also

http://www.google.co...355534169,d.bmk

In all these instances, it wasn't a robbery, it was some guy who wanted to take others with him when he died. Now imagine if these were 'no gun zones' and these people didn't have their guns to stop these crazies. How many would have died? Call the police? How long did it take the police to move in and save those kids in school? What if one of the teachers who died for their kids had a gun instead?

"...Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten

Not in these instances. And I'm pretty sure if one of the teachers was like that assistant principal in Pearl High School, the death toll in school shootings would be way less.

Edited December 22, 2012 by gl555

[JUDAS]

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. There's 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. There are 150 million of us gun owners in the United States. "Ridding" the U.S. of guns is simply not going to happen. There's too many of us.

Some of us happen to support the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

I love how people who are not from the United States, don't live in the United States, and have no connection with the United States like to spout their opinions of what United States laws should be. If you do not like the laws of the United States then don't come to the United States.

Come on sub. I read a lot of your posts and find them usually well balanced and thought out. Are you really saying only those who live in or visit the USA can have an opinion on US laws. You've never posted an opinion on another countries laws apart from the USA / Thailand?

It's a fact of life that the USA, as the world's most powerful and influential nation has domestic laws which can and do have an international impact. It's not as if all guns sold within America actually remain there.

Can you please explain how the 2nd Amendment personally affects your life in your home country?

Thank you.

Always happy to answer a politely asked question. My home country is N. Ireland though I've lived in Thailand for many years. It's well documented that the IRA were able to purchase large quantities of weapons, through their agents, in the USA. I would suggest that these weapons were more easily obtainable due to the 2nd Amendment. The IRA had a fondness for the AR-18 which they got from the USA.

I won't go into personal details but suffice to say I would support stricter gun control though actually not an outright banning.

I wonder if any Mexican board members would care to answer the same question you posed.

[Mosha]

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. There's 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. There are 150 million of us gun owners in the United States. "Ridding" the U.S. of guns is simply not going to happen. There's too many of us.

Some of us happen to support the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

I love how people who are not from the United States, don't live in the United States, and have no connection with the United States like to spout their opinions of what United States laws should be. If you do not like the laws of the United States then don't come to the United States.

The trouble with the 2nd Amendment is in the 1st part of the sentence. The USA does not have a well regulated militia.

[Suradit69]

The enemy would be crazy people with guns killing people ........ Armed good people is not an unreasonable solution to armed bad people.

Do you have any idea of the calibre of people hired as security guards in most businesses, airports, schools, etc.?

I'm sure that most of them are "good," but many of them are of limited intelligence, are unable to find more desirable employment because of advanced age, medical conditions, poor work record. Would you really want these "good" people firing guns any place where crowds of people, especially children, are everywhere? Anyway, they'd probably be shot first or someone would take their guns to shoot others or they'd take out innocent people.

I can't imagine anyone would feel safer sending their children into a building where some palsied geriatric case in a uniform was armed to the teeth. I doubt teachers would be comfortable with that either.