zlacker

A gun can stop an attacker whether human, ursine, or large feline.

A gun can be used for recreational shooting.

A gun can just be an historical collectors' piece.

A gun can be used in researching bullet proof vests and other equipment for a startup looking to sell to law enforcement/military.

There are many reasons for gun ownership. Ultimately, the reason should be that the individual is free to do as he/she chooses so long as he/she doesn't initiate a violent interaction.

The most often cited reason for banning firearms is the prevention of school shootings. For some reason, everyone is focused on the gun and not the fact that students wish to do violence at schools. What is it about the modern educational system that students wish to perpetrate violence in the schools to other students and teachers? Why isn't the mental health of the American youth at the center of this conversation?

>>BirAda+(OP)
I do not disagree. It should be focusing on the fact that a student wanted to cause violence. It could have been done through a gun, a knife, a fork, and a thousand different items. In fact, a fist may suffice. Or an item that is readily available at schools. Any item. That said, guns are especially good at "harm as many as possible". Just like bombs are.

>>BirAda+(OP)
I should be free to do whatever I want with my Javelin missile as long as I don't initiate a violent interaction.

>>BirAda+(OP)
Let's fund and destigmatize mental healthcare! And also ban guns!

Guns are more likely to cause accidental death or suicide than to save your life. Big cats and bears can be dealt with using sprays and other measures.

A bit of sport shooting isn't worth having to train kindergartners in active shooter drills.

>>BirAda+(OP)
Yet strangely, Canada has almost the exact same media and near identical mental health statistics and the country has a tiny fraction of the school shootings in the United States. Like it or not, the availability of military grade weapons sure seems to increase the likelihood that a kid will get killed at school.

>>hluska+Za1
I think there is more to it than availability.

If a kid really wanted to hurt another, could have done it through other means. Could it be that more kids in the US have violent tendencies for whatever reasons? It would be nice to figure out those reasons.

>>johnis+yd1
Hurting one kid with a knife is drastically different to hurting thirty with a gun or rifle.

It’s almost like gun enthusiasts are, conveniently, completely incapable of processing the concept of “force multiplication”.

>>broken+O41
You are right. Polish Head of Police had one in his office[1]. He launch it in his office without violent interracion.

[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polands-top-cop-accidenta...

>>deaddo+JE1
I am not saying it is not different, and I mentioned this in another comment that guns and bombs are definitely useful to "hurt as many as possible", but I think my question still stands regardless of this. In fact, it might make even more sense to ask the question.