Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

An armed teacher would be the first target for a gunman. With the element of surprise the teacher would have no chance. That this is even being considered is insane. Strong gun control is the only route in a country where self-regulation is utterly ineffective.

Given the low number of these small schools vs the number of school shootings there is no evidence to point to this approach as being an actual solution.

Even if we take it as being a fix, can you please explain how this idea could possibly scale? It is like those who claim 'we did it in airports, why not in schools?' - it completely ignores the vastly larger population and budget required.

It is just another complete pipedream used to distract from even discussing any form of gun control.

If a softly softly approach isn't working, are you suggesting a harder approach? Such as? What realistic actions would you suggest?

The fact that most people don't have guns in this country is a massive source of safety for it. I am sure laws go overboard and any law will effect law abiding shooters as well. It is going to be too hard to exactly separate those laws.

Also I really, really don't care. I would massively prefer we go overboard on gun laws than under shoot it. It is an annoyance and a grumbling point down the range when it goes too far and brings in something pointless and increases the risk of mass shootings when it doesn't go far enough.

Mandatory registration of all firearms owned in the United States, no questions asked. Give a 3-year lead-in period. Individuals without a firearms certificate are not permitted to purchase any new weapons and cannot register more than one weapon. Some special exemptions for the ownership of antique weapons (manufactured before 1950, say). Mandatory wait periods, limits on the number of weapons someone can own without proof of competency, mandatory rules on securing firearms in the home, and especially in a vehicle.

Put aside a $2tn buyback fund where anyone can surrender any weapon and the federal government will exchange it for cash. Again, no questions asked.

After the 3-year period, being in possession of any firearm illegally becomes a federal offence and carries a $10k fine and 3 years in prison.

You know, common sense stuff that allows people to have guns for hunting, defence from large animals and sport shooting, without allowing any idiot anywhere to have a gun for the purposes of shooting other people.

I don’t tend to be a very emotional person, outwardly at least, but it speaks volumes that when my girlfriend (who taught elementary in the US South for several years) explained to me the drills they do in schools for active shooter events I had tears in my eyes. The children are quite literally taught to run, and if they can’t run then to hide, and if they can’t hide — to fight. Little tiny children being told to fight ... against a grown up psychopath with an assault rifle. And for a teacher to have to explain this to children, in modern day America, is insane.

And this is the sum of the efforts of a country that deems itself the standard bearer of the free world? That rather than make any meaningful effort to mitigate the risk of a gunman ever being in a school, the insipid policy finds itself dribbling all the way down to a 7 year old child being their own last line of defence against a society, with all its intellect and wealth, which has utterly failed to protect them? A country where the amassing of weapons capable of efficient mass murder is for “self-defence”. A country where people tell you that their guns make them feel safe against the threat of a tyrannical government or apocalypse, to the point where they will favour the mitigation of these infinitesimally small risks over the mitigation of the quite literally daily risk of madmen roaming shops and schools with guns capable of mass murder.

There is no point in being unrealistic. The US is so awash with weaponry that it would likely take years to decommission the vast arsenal built versus a large group of the population who would be uncooperative. Guns will be in US society for a long time to come. But my God it’s the complete lack of effort, the excuse-making, the whataboutery, the warped view of freedom, the bizarre justifications and the conspiracy theorising to avoid doing anything, anything at all meaningful about it — it’s just shameful.

There is as of this year 22 million AR-15 style weapons in legal circulation in the USA. 22m for an adult population of about 260m, insane. That's only one style of gun albeit the most popular.

I'm fine wth stringent background checks.

I don't know how you would logistically do the psychological assessments but I'm not totally against them. I think these would only filter out a very small percentage of the nut jobs as how can a psychologist know what's going on inside your head based on a short meeting. I don't think it's practical to do detailed psychological testing on up to 100 million people.

There are already age restrictions in place. You have to be 18 to buy a gun as far as I'm aware.

Regarding the reasons for a gun permit, everyone will just put down 'self-defence' as that's a valid reason in the US so it would just become a tick box exercise and achieve nothing.

I'm fine with civilians not having access to military grade weapons. The AR15 is not a military grade firearm. It's similar in looks but not in action. It's a semi-auto firearm whereas military weapons are mostly fully auto or burst fire.

You are correct, you don't need an AR15 to defend yourself, but they are very effective when it comes to defending oneself. They also have many other uses such as hunting and target shooting.

Not only that, he won't even be able to legally have a bottle of beer for another 3 years.

What fucking country. 🙄

Non-sequiter.

As I said earlier, you're talking about zero-effort solutions that don't work. It's the same "good guy with a gun" nonsense that's been peddled over and over and never changed a thing.

There's a reason why burglaries that end in murder are so rare in Europe and comparatively high in the US. Especially considering that there are less burglaries per capita in the US. Because burglars feel threatened.

If a crazed maniac breaks into my house intent on killing me and my family, and he knows that I probably have a gun, then he's going to put a bullet in my head before I have time to react.

Of course, here in Ireland there's very little chance that I have a gun, so a crazed maniac is going to take his time, if that's what he's going to do.

If a crazed maniac was in your home intent on killing you, would you rather he just dropped you straight away, or would you rather have the chance to talk him down?

The argument that, "If teachers had a gun, it might save some lives", ignores the fact that if teachers carried guns, it could cost far more lives than it potentially saves. The existence of weapons during an standoff escalates it immediately.

18 to buy an assault riffle and 500 rounds of live ammunition.

21 to buy tobacco and alcohol. (and I mean it is seriously enforced too)

Its the dumbest country in the world, run by lobbyists.

Ben Shapiro is rarely, if ever right. Many, many schools in America have similar measures but still have school shootings. Instead of actually trying to deal with the problem you're just adding more possibility for human error. We've already seen the police who responded to this shooting show up (armed to the teeth along with that) and make no effort to enter the building and instead spent their time setting up barriers.

Ben's proposal means that you have to rely on one or a few security guards not absolutely bottling it if something happens and there is no guarantee of that. Not to mention a well planned attack will still cause mayhem, if more limited. Increasing militarisation of schools will only increase the firepower and methods of would-be attackers. You're still not dealing with the root causes for these attacks.