Gun Control Pros And Cons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Gun control is a set of laws designed to regulate the sale and use of guns. Examples of gun control measures include licenses being required to buy and sell guns, and the use of background checks, or even just getting rid of guns completely. In the United States gun control is a hotly debated topic, due to how pervasive gun ownership is compared to other western countries, and how high gun violence is, with proponents of gun control arguing that the two are linked. I’ll spend half of this video talking about the pros of gun control and the other half on the cons, whilst allowing for each argument to receive a rebuttal.
Get PAID For Answering Surveys- No Joke, I got £30 off of this in a week- qm.ee/488B3739
SUBSCRIBE HERE!- / @thatswhytv
Where you can find me!
Twitter: / thatswhytv
Facebook: / thatswhytv
The main argument in favour of gun control supposes that higher levels of gun ownership cause higher levels of gun violence. The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with roughly 400 million guns in the country, or 120 guns per 100 people, as well as the 28th highest rate of violent gun death per 100,000 at 4.43, comapred to other western countries like the UK where the rate is 0.06 Source: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. In response, opponents of gun control argue that gun violence and gun ownership are not correlated. They point to coutnries like Switzerland and Canada which have high levels of gun ownership yet much lower levels of gun violence such as suicides and murder. Furthermore, opponents of gun control point to America’s pecular demographic nature being at fault for its high level of gun violence. Gun violence in America is much higher in inner city areas than rural places, for example compare the murder rate of 55 per 100,000 in Baltimore to 1 in Vermont, a state with higher levels of gun ownership. The argument that thus follows is that tackling poverty and inner city crime would be more beneficial for reducing gun violence than gun control. However one could equally argue that Canada and Switzerland rate of gun ownership is nowhere near as high as that of US’s, both countries have about 30 firearms per 100 people, comapred to 120 in the US.
Furthermore Proponents of gun control point to not just the human cost of higher gun violence, but the financial burden of the US’s healthcare system having to fork out trillions every year to treat people with gunshot wounds. With money and lives being wasted, time is also wasted due to the cylical nature of the gun debate in America, a debate that becomes newsworthy whenever a mass shooting occurs, before fading into obscurity again. Again however, opponents of gun control argue that mass shootings only represent a tiny fraction of all violent gun deaths, and that banning weapons like assult rifles is futile when most shootings occur with handguns.
The main argument opponents of gun control use references the second amendment of the US constituion that reads ‘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’. To many americans the second amendment represents not just the right to self defense, but to privacy, property, and freedom from governmental tyranny and almost a certain equality with the state. Thus, to these Americans, any form of gun control represents a reduction in their individual freedom to keep and bear arms. However, it is important to note that this interpretation of the second amendment is not universally agreed upon. Some stipulate that the second amendment only entitles a militia, an army to bear arms, proponents of gun control can point to the DC vs Heller supreme court decision to back this up. Furthermore the idea that any element of gun control risks trammeling American freedom can be contradicted by looking at any number of gun control restrictions that have been put in place throughout American history for example during the mafia period,
in the gun control act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.
However opponents of gun control continue to uphold their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, with emphasis on how it prevents crimes and how it improves feelings of individual safety, for example amongst women, as well as the argument that criminals will find a way to get guns if ordinary citizens are dispossed of their firearms.
Tags
trump gun control
gun control debate
democratic debate gun control
guns
remote gun control
gun debate
ben shapiro gun control
steven crowder gun control
australia gun control
australia buyback
background checks
gun license
mass shooting
gun control reaction
piers morgan gun control
usa
america guns
universal background checks
Great unbiased content.
Thank you
@@thatswhytv You speak like a true academic that just want to present the facts while offering different perspectives. I’m extremely pro gun and I can appreciate the fact that you presented both arguments without a bias.
Wth is wrong with u@@TexasTeaHTX
gov says you dont need guns thats when you need guns
Thats such a unsubstantial statement
Americans have well over 350 million guns,not possible to remove them all. Americans will fight to keep them.
God damn right we will.
Keep it that way, you need it to balance the power of the people against the enemies, and the government.
I think there should be a limitation of how long a politician can stay at their jobs. I think that a politician should have at least one or two terms, one or four years. After that, they are done. They should not be able to constantly and constantly run for political office. But those are my thoughts.
What do you think of gun control though?
@@thatswhytv I shouldn't be thinking of gun control. Guns are not the problems. People have been killing people since the beginning of time. If the damn politicians did their jobs instead of filling their pockets with cash and favors, these situations would be handle. One can't blame an material object for the crime. One has to blame the person that committed the crime for that crime. And once that person has been found guilty of their crime, how to keep that person from committing more crimes is the question...
Instead of coming up with good useful answer to solve problems, all these lousy politicians do is to put Band-Aids and put useless "feel good" laws that have been proven never to work time after time for people to feel better but the crimes will always be reappearing. Criminals and crazy people will always find a way to kill. ONce a person is determine to kill or to hurt; there is no way to stop them. So instead of solving the problems, these lousy politicians put band-aids for the public to forget about it and for the same public to re-elect them when election time pops up.
Have a nice day.
There is a majority (to the best of my knowledge) however, it is those in power to stop term limits that control and constrict this prevent term limit ability. Something the internet could perhaps STOP. THOUGHT: WE NEED TERM LIMITS TO OUST THESE MASS LUNITICS IN UNLIMITED TERM LIMITS. LETS MAKE IT AN OFFICIAL ELECTION DEMAND.
MOVER: Officials claim this: "USA is a government of Laws" Let us start a movement changing that to: "This is foremost a Government of JUSTICE." AND... ANY LAW THAT IS NOT JUSTICE should NOT be upheld, NOR MLEGAL. Think about it... IF Justice is ALWAYS upheld, why do we need Law? If Law is always upheld, without concern for Justice (as is its current conditions) how can Justice prevail.
JUSTICE SHOULD ALWAYS PREVAIL!!!
OTHER QUESTIONS REQUIRING ANSWERS:
1): HOW MANY BLACK FOLK HAS THE BLM ASSISTED ( Other than BLM Members )?
2): HOW MANY TIMES HAS TERM LIMITS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR ENACTMENT AND PASSED?
3): HOW MANY TIMES HAS TECHNICALLITIES DEFEATED JUSTICE, ALLOWING EVIL ITS FREEDOM?
4): HOW MANY BAD POLITICIAN DECISSIONS COST LIVES? HOW MANY COST INNOCENT LIVES?
5): IS RUSSIA GOING TO STOP ALL AGGRESSION IF IT OBTAINS ALL OF THE STATES ONCE OWNED BY THE USSR?
6): ONCE THE COST OF THIS ONGOING WAR IS REALIZED, WHERE WILL RUSSIA SEEK ITS FINANCIAL RECOVERY?
7): WHAT MUST USA DO IF RUSSIA HITS EUROPE WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB?
8): WHAT MUST USA DO IF RUSSIA HITS USA WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB?
8): WHEN WILL USA STOP ATTACKING CHRONIC PAIN SUFFERERS INSTEAD OF SEVERELY ATTACKING DRUG ADDICTS? ( CURRENTLY USA IS ASSISTING DRUG ADDICTS AS THOUGH THEY ARE VICTIMS. )
9): BEING MUTILATED SEVERAL TIMES BY DOCTORS, NURSES & HOSPITALS... WHEN WILL THEY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? THEIR UN~NECESSARY MUTILATION WERE NOT STOPPED BECAUSE I WAS HEAVILY SEDATED AND BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO ACT OR ANSWER MY QUESTIONS WHILE LUCID (However, they certainly WILL pay and my demand ccx will be harsh, of course, they can make it worse.
Let us start UA-cam Videos addressing all tyrannical USA Citizens face.
One other observation: During the Portland Riots/Lootings I seemed to notice a lot of White Folk on the front lines seemingly "holding the line" as a lot of Black Folk were throwing fire bottles and looting... can someone, anyone substantuate that? (You must have actual videos) Or... (hopefully prove me wrong)
If the 2nd Amendment is ignored, which Amendment will be ignored next?
The Supreme Court has been pissing on the Fourth Amendment for 40 years.
the amendments can be changed. Most countries have modernized their amendments as time passed
Isn't the whole point of an Amendment is to change to adapt to our current society?
@@ianorellana3959 it is until that amendment literally say it shall not be infringed. This is what makes the second so unique to the others. It was written so that it protects itself.
@@buzza2077 It should definitely be reformed
Schreibt noch jemand eine Englischklausur darüber?😂
ja haha
I lived most of my life in New Jersey with the strictest gun controls in the nation and i now live in Florida with 2nd amendment freedoms. These two states are night and day. In NJ it will take up to 6 months to obtain a purchases permit, that doesn’t account each permit you have to purchase for each handgun. You cannot even carry conceal. The only folks that carry conceal are the criminals. They don’t need jobs because they can rob you on site. The police are your only protection if they show up in time. If you get caught with a pistol, that is an automatic charge for five year prison sentence. The crime and murder rates involving guns are still high in the inner cities of Camden, Trenton, Newark and lower income sub communities. Luckily i was never robbed or shot at. But there are tons of people I know that carry illegally. You’d be surprised. The cops cannot patrol every aspect of your neighborhood.
Here in Florida, as long as your a FL resident and have no priors. you can go to the gun store or pawn shop and have a pistol on 3 days in some counties. You can also apply for your conceal carry, take an 8 hour course and be able to walk around unrestricted areas freely in 2 months with a concealed pistol, knife, pretty much any approved weapon concealed. I stay with a 9MM on my hip and a knife at all times. I feel safe everywhere I go and always makes for great conversation. I never been robbed or shot at in Florida and know anyone that has. Everyone carries in Florida so we treat each other respectfully because there is equal grounds.
In my opinion, gun control does not work, Even in the states that already have gun control. They need more TV programming with less violence and more programming on how to mind your own business and respect each other. People are less likely to get violent if we treat each other with respect. Kids and adults are more emotional than ever. Even in prison, the most restricted building can get weapons in. the whole country would be impossible to restrict. i lived 35 years without a gun and been fine because of respect. I owned a gun for 5 years in a state filled with gun owners and i am still fine because if respect. Imagine if our world leaders had that logic.
Ok, now look at mass shooting stats in NJ and Florida. Compare them. Also, when you lived in NJ, how many times were you in a situation where having a gun would’ve saved you? Look at all of the mass shootings in Florida. Please tell me how many times an armed law abiding citizen stopped a gunman in Florida. Guns don’t protect you when you don’t need protection. However, easy access to guns allows irresponsible people to own them. NJ can’t relate to mass shootings like Florida.
@@kevinb3647 Florida is just a little over New Jersey in mass shootings but Florida has quadruple the population. The problem with Florida legal carry is, some places are restricted to carry such as school grounds and government areas. California in which has the strictest laws has more mass shooting than New Jersey and Florida.
I'm definitely very pro gun but I did leave a like on the video just cause of how unbiased and neutral it was. Keep it up 👍
Cheers :)
Couldn’t agree more. I’m glad a video finally mentioned how the inter city poverty rate is correlated to gun death rates. Also disappointed that he used the words:”assault rifles” nobody is dying from assault rifles in the United States. Fully automatic guns are banned
@Eli Hauser imagine explaining why you’re allowing yourself to become a victim
@@thatswhytv Gun Control=People Control
@@landonboomsma2594 Warfare-style machine guns are banned. Full-autos are heavily regulated.
My only criticism is using the word "assault rifle" as it is simply inaccurate. Most Americans have no access to assault rifles as those are select fire weapons and thus not being referenced (those are classified as "machine guns" legally). Americans currently only have access to semi-automatic rifles and pistols as well as Smooth bore shotguns. The other applicable term is "assault weapon" which is very different which sets up a set of standards which include detachable magazines, barrel length, weight, and magazine capacity. This is important as someone who looks up "assault rifle" will not get the definition that is being referenced and can have their position skewed simply based on wording however this can also be irrelevant to the argument for or against gun control since the ideal is none at all. Otherwise great video!
Yet, if one is honest, the civilian AR platforms are often more capable than the military issued M4 or M16..The difference is of course the AR isn't select fire, however in my years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq with my Naval EOD team, I can count on my hand the times I used full auto fire with my M4. It simply burns though ammunition and reduces accurate fire. If we were in need of suppression we had the SAW, the argument that it's not an Assault Rifle is true, but it's not the winner in these debates as it's kinda a matter of terminology and not addressing the actual lethality of the weapon system. Having said this, I FULLY support any citizen be legally able to obtain these platforms, even full auto lowers without any further need of "universal" background checks, gun control measures, or even tax stamps..
Fact: guns actually refer to artillery and firearms refer to small at arms aka what most people call guns
Fact: artillery crews are known for pissing in a squat
@Cotton Eye Darren hand guns, long guns
Unbiased... Liked it!
The biggest issue in my mind is that firearms are not a high tech device. Anybody with woodworking and metalwork skills and a lathe can make a gun
I liked since I learned something new. I'm pro gun and always will be. I think singling out the 2nd as an isolated view of individual vs. collective right is an interesting point. My only question then becomes, if we can look at this one piece from this point of view, is it not fair the rest were written from the same perspective? Such as free speech as a collective law but not individual?
Absence of a Amendment to the Constitution , the government at any level has no authority to ban firearms .
Well after watching this, I have changed my mind. I do feel now that gun control is an infringement on the 1st amendment. I have totally flipped 180° and will support legal gun owners.
@Bartholomew Roberts I think he meant 2nd amendment. Hopefully it was a typo lol and not that he thinks the 2nd amendment is the 1st amendment.
@@hudsonshifferd6411 How's he wrong though, gun control could absolutely lead to an infringement of the 1A as well..The 2A is the hing that supports all other rights, as it's the citizens ability to project force that ultimately keeps government from enforcement of speech regulations..
You mean 2nd
Love how your not lying and not being biased. Also pro gun here
This is a great example of what the American media should be, unbiased. Sadly, we will never see that happen. Great unbiased video. (Ps I am pro gun)
They are trigger happy in the US, i like america.
Gun deaths and murder rate are not that same statistic. Look at the murder and crime rate of all countries before and after they have banned guns. And then you have to adjust for the fact that crime in general is on the decline. Once you adjust for those factors murder rate is largely unchanged. Saying countries that have no guns have less gun deaths is like saying countries without cars have less vehicle accident deaths. Not surprising. Its like knife murders are ok but gun murders are not. However mass shootings are almost non existent in countries that have banned guns. Now you have to ask is it ok to ban guns to save a small amount of people? And if it is ok then why is it not ok to ban alcohol and cigarettes that kill far more people than guns and provide no benefits. When is it ok to ban something?
No
It never works as intended.
How do you mean?
@@thatswhytv The NICS for 1.
So you're in favour of Background Checks?
@@thatswhytv No as the NICS does NOT work as intended. I work at a gun store and sell guns daily.
The system is a big piece of crap. Roughly 94% of the time the NICS sends a denial for firearms transfers it isn't based on any governmental objective standard. It means only 6% of NICS denials are legitimate due to criminal record, adjudication of mentally ill persons and/or those with restraining orders.
I have been denied twice in two different states while I have maintained a handgun carry permit for 10+ years and have no criminal record. I'm an NRA certified instructor that certifies others to carry handguns.
I have attempted to sell uniformed police officers/soldiers on leave firearms and they have been denied on occasion.
The facts are states have NO legal requirement to communicate with each other or the federal government when it comes to criminal records or record keeping dealing with the NICS. They may transmit class A mis. - Felonies to other states/federal database they may not there is no legal requirement.
The system has been around and amended multiple times in law and they still can't get it right. It was drafted by Joe Biden and took 5 years to implement initially. It has NEVER worked correctly since 1998 and it will never work correctly.
Is there any way to improve it do you think?
A well regulated militia doesn't kill school children.
To me, gun control is almost like DRM in video games.
Why are the British talking about my guns? Perhaps the Queen should come and try to take them? Or, the new King? I don’t think you can handle Bretonwoods 2.0: The British Pound Down.
Message received?
Maybe because an unhealthy amount of people die due to civilian owned firearms. You seriously think either Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia or South America have any worse freedom or defence capabilities even though they don’t have gun laws.
I'm also a foreigner here. Just let them talk.
But hold your guns tight, you would need it as a negotiating power to the government and the foreign enemies.
Have you received police brutality for such things like...questioning their corruption or the absence of the people to democratically take part in the house of representatives?
^^^ That's your reason to keep your guns and the Second Amendment, so there's no doubt about it.
I’m from Germany and can please somebody explain to me for what I need a weapon ? In Germany I don’t know a single person who ever even thought about getting one.
Thanks
Unfortunately in the United States, we need weapons to protect our families. Many poor areas experienced crime rates so high, it’s immeasurable. These people In poverty are forced to get a gun so they can protect their families. It’s very easy for someone in a safe area to say we don’t need guns, but when we live in a dangerous area, when there are kidnappings, home invasions, riots, and gang violence, it’s now very hard for you to say that you don’t need a gun.
You are lucky to live in a country that has their stuff together, because there, there is no need to own a weapon because there is no reason to own one. Crime is low. Changing a government does not require indiscriminate bloodshed.
Here, it does. Crime is high. Our government does not explicitly want to totally oppress their voters, but our armed to the teeth defenses can turn against us. That is why we need some sort of weapon, but that brings the slew of problems like mass violence and criminals strengthening their system by using weapons.
I wish you a happy life my friend, for America is not North Korea, but it is certainly not Germany.
@@Post_Stall_Maneuver Thanks you for the answer I think I get that.
how about mexico or venezuela the violence there is extreme with guns and venezuela has they ow goverment shooting at they own people
The criminals kept thier guns and the good citizens are getting killed raped and stolen from
Count my country THAILAND as another proof too.
Guns laws here is not as tough as my neighbors, but they are mostly available for the elites or people with money.
And we have no negotiating power against the military regime that controls the parliament and the senate.
They distributed bullets and rubbers and tear gas one-sided to the crowds last year throughout Bangkok city.
So yeah, that is what gun control actually does.
Gun violence? Watching them many decades. My guns never became violent. Anyone out there whose guns became violent? Hope someone will come forward, I would like to know how it can happen.
Go ahead gun, kill someone
I love the fact that the video is 5:56 long
what's the name of this background music?
There are no pros only cons
I completely disagree
@@CadeAlex and why is that?
@@ThickWalrus my major reasons are:
1. that more people are saved by firearms than people are killed because the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
2. If guns were illegal it would make it so that only bad people have guns because good people wouldn't commit a crime.
3. 70% gun crimes are from handguns and not fully automatic weapons it is actually incredibly difficult to legally get a fully automatic rifle
4. The number of gun deaths are massively played up only 20,000 die from guns and around 60% of those are from suicide
@@CadeAlex wait wait did you not understand my comment I pro guns
@@CadeAlex I like guns
I lived in a complex whare the owner screen tenets .but city said he could not. So he let a t family in . For some strange reason the they experienced a lot of theft .including guns . And parts from A cop car .bragging about cop car
Okay 👍
Looked up the definition of unbiased and it showed a picture of your channel
Cleaning up
I think if someone fear guns, they would more
likely to get hit by bullets. They should touch,
hold, shoot guns. So the smell of legal guns
& ammo would be with them. It’s like evil
would go away from that person. & most of
all, always pray.
the fact that we are using this in school
That barely touches the debate. And was missing many important aspects on both sides. And nothing was really put into full enough context to really understand the points.
Good video
Thank you
I'm pro gun and willing to give universal Healthcare a try.
I’m pro gun for regular citizens but I’m also pro gun control(like requiring minimal training, no ex criminals or mentally ill people or people with no educational background, and teaching people about their laws to manipulate guns) and requiring further psychological and hands on training to conceal carry on streets, and pro social policies (like reducing corruption in police, increasing ethics and education and decreasing poverty)so people wouldn’t even need to use their guns as much for their security’s sake ( although they could use it for other things ofc, the only thing I dislike about hunting and sports shooting is loudness but there are ways to overcome that without removing peoples guns) , does anyone feel the same way?
A person that has had a misdemeanor crime punishable of up to 2 years, is mentally unstable, or a former criminal cannot get a firearm. In some states, there is a small online training course you have to take when it’s your first time purchasing a gun.
Also about the loudness thing, wear ear protection if you’re near someone shooting a gun or shooting one yourself
I'm glad it's not like that, because I enjoy my guns.
So ones right to own a firearm is actually in the hands of a doctor? Ok, then before you have the right to free speech, you have to get a medical and mental health evaluation, gotta make sure you don't say anything potentially offensive right?
@@Post_Stall_Maneuver So, speech has arguably more capacity to create violence than a firearm, doctors should not have the right to upend someone's constitutional rights, this is kinda common sense..
The second amendment isn't really all that important............ until some government agency tries to take it away. There will never be any compromise on this issue where one side wants to defend their rights while the other wants to remove rights. We will never be OK with any reduction of rights to make some bureaucrat feel empowered.
Civil war
1. Swiss and Canada --> No their gun possesion numbers are not a high as the US but even if adjusted for those number the US has still waaaaay more gun violence
2. That´s why not only assault rifles should be banned, exactly.
3. This "well regulated" (how is it regulated at all ?) militia is also the biggest threat. roughly speaking 50% of the US population are REP. with the other 50% being DEM. States like China, Russia, North Korea use the US freedom of speech to instigate and divide the public. So this "militia" can lead to a civil war which is the biggest danger for the US, being divided as it is right now.
Do the exceptions of freedom of speech reduce your freedom ? No. Every right comes with responsibility. They always come in unity. You can´t have the one without the other. You can´t be made responsible for something you don´t have the right and vide versa. This is why the right to drive a car does not mean you can drive wherever however you want.
So yes you absolutely should have the right to own a gun but no those right are not absolute. They never can be because right´s and responsibilities are one.
Just like having the right to owning and driving a car comes with a plethora of extra rules etc. so should guns. In fact this is always the case in any country except in the US for some reason this is still a topic.
an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon by the way. hardly any americans have one
@@noahpollack5358 So say an semi auto M14 is not an assault weapon ? Really that is the distinction you gonna make ? The difference so minor it does not even makes sense. You dont even use full auto 99% of the time in almost any situation ...well except you want to shoot a whole bunch of people at once...preferable unarmed, say in a school xD
God you guy´s are hopeless really...
@@sierraecho884 it still isn’t an assault rifle and most shootings anyways are from handguns including mass shootings
@@noahpollack5358 Read my no. then again please.
I guess the definition of assault rifle then varies from the one I have learned, but then again I am not in the US.
Canada has less people, which means less gun deaths.
What a great unbiased assessment. Both sides have good arguments.This video gave me a good fram of reference. The solution to the problem must lie in the compromise of both sides. Eaasier said than done!
We've already compromised...We allowed for gun control acts before, SBR, SBS, and full auto weapons where regulated in 1936..Then we allowed the machine gun ban in 86 that made any future transfer of machine guns manufactured post 86 completely illegal. Then we allowed the Brady act, so I would say we've compromised enough..At this point the banning of AR or AK platforms is never going to be tolerated, Americans have ALWAYS had access to the small arms of our own military, even if they where in semi auto forms. It allowes the citizen who wishes to be equally armed as any first world light infantry unit, we cannot and will not allow that balance of power to change..
move to gun free Mexico. How about you tell us what kind of religion we should have next. there is no gun violence .
Yes very safe and absolutely no gun violence. A paragon of safety even
Definitely right
Gun control laws and gun proliferation laws neither increase or decrease crime in terms of statistics.
It's to be expected in a nation that has had mass weapons proliferation for over 400 years.
This is idiotic NO ONE is talking about BANNING GUNS......Military style weapons that NOBODY NEEDS.....yes.
“military style weapons” are the average handgun by the way such as a glock. plus most gun deaths are by handguns anyways
Please define “Military style weapon.”
@@Noone129 Your question shows that you want nothing done about the Hideous Gross , Appalling Ongoing Murder Of Innocent People......
@@harlow743 Of course I want to save people from murder, but getting rid of guns isn’t the answer, since criminals, by definition don’t follow the law. They do not care if a gun gets banned. Either they will buy a gun from the black market, or they’ll use another weapon. Take a look a France. There is a guy who killed 81 people, with a truck, no gun required to kill that many people. Also, more people are saved by guns, than they are killed by guns. Specifically around 500k-3million people who are saved by guns compared to 40k people who died because of guns. Also, that 40k is mostly suicides, so that drops to 8k. By the way, most gun murders and mass shootings are committed with pistols, and like around 2% of mass shootings and gun murders are committed with “military style weapons.”I personally believe that if the teachers are willing to be armed with a gun, then they should, so they could protect the kids in the classroom.
Edit: Grammar and spelling.
Studies have shown that an area where most people are armed with a gun is safe compared to gun free zones. There is a reason most, if NOT all mass shooters shoot up a gun free zone, rather than a shooting range.
No