Good points made.

Dad was a purist when it came to hunting. Early on, my brothers and I were taught three things: 1) Treat ALL guns as if they are loaded at all times, and NEVER point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; 2) shooting happens at the END of the hunting. Being a good shot does not make one a good hunter; and 3) the most important shot is the first one; a bunch of following shots usually means that you botched the first one.

They were all points well-taken. My brothers and I grew up knowing woodcraft, and in Northern MN where depending on the direction you might be looking at 10 miles or more of unbroken forest, that knowledge was invaluable. We learned the habits of the game we were hunting, the type of land and cover where they might be found, how they'd act in certain situations, etc.

We also learned to navigate the woods; no GPS in those days. Of course we carried compasses but we learned to tell direction without a compass as well. I used to play a game with myself where I'd pick a known point in my mind, then walk 2-3 miles through unbroken woodland (much of it muskeg swamp) without using a compass, and see how close I could get to it. I was rarely more than 100 yards distant from it when I came out.

I also did some archery hunting (not too successfully, but...). One of my goals is to hunt feral pigs down here, either with a bow or rifle. Haven't done it yet, but...

Arms
 

This argument is flawed in so many ways, but the biggest is, ever since arms were invented they were improved on. So it is obvious to think that the Founding Fathers would know that and to have that in mind when they wrote and voted on it.

Right. Ordinary people should have the weapons being used in the Ukraine war right now. The Founding Fathers would have found that acceptable.

100% agree.

Similar to a lawyer argument...either use, abuse or hide behind the law....which ever is convenient to make a point or support a given agenda.

I said in a previous post that I agreed that schools should harden their perimeters. Also, large churches and all squares with entertainment in the US, which would be soft targets. Teachers should have bulletproof rooms where they could squeeze the students into during an emergency. This would mean increasing people's property tax and that would be a TOUGH sell. So, I agree with some of your post.
........As far as my being wrong about the zero Australian mass murders. Yes, if it was really 17 mass killing events since 1997. and I will take your word on that. Then, TECHNICALLY......I misspoke myself. BUT, big but........when you consider that 1997 is 25 years ago. Then 17 mass murders in Australia divided by 25 years is .68 mass murders PER YEAR in Australia. Now let us consider the population of Australia and the US. Australia has 27 million people. US about 360 million or about 13 times greater. So, to equalize Australia and the US to correctly compare mass murders we need to multiply Australia's mass murder rate of .68 per year by multiplying that rate by 13 which gives us - 8.84 So, call that about 9 mass killing events per year. In other words......if the US had the laws and social attitude that Australia has, then there would be ONLY 9 mass murder events in the US per year. Compare that to what the US ACTUALLY has, which is about 360 YEAR TO DATE this year. If we extrapolate out to the end of this year, we get 620 mass murder events.
.......So, when I said Australia had zero (and I thought I read that) ...... when you compare the number 9 to the number 620 .......that makes the 9 almost zero in comparison. And it makes me really wish that I lived in Australia with respect to mass murder events. But even more so and better, I would wish to live in the US and children's lives and adult lives were MORE VALUED like they are in Australia and New Zealand. Ask yourself is it better that my gun goes off.....bang, bang, bang real QUICKLY (SEMI-AUTO) or how about the trade-off of ......bang........bang..........bang a little bit slower to save ALL those lives -------------the 620 times 5 or more LIVES that the US will lose in THIS year alone.

What a "lawyerly" response.

I just read that Sapirman carried an AR-15-type rifle, which substantiates my opinion that those are the weapons of choice for US mass murderers. He probably would have killed more if he had chosen an elevated position and somewhere that offered protection from fire from citizens with pistols. I agree that the person that had a license to carry was INDEED a hero.
.........My conclusion is that it is great to have an armed hero available in this situation. But, what would cause fewer mass murders MORE armed heroes or LESS availability of semi-auto rifles in the hands of the demented mass killers? I would prefer the solution to be FEWER semi-auto rifles sold in the American market. In my opinion, MORE armed heroes is the weaker solution. It is like on the world stage........we all want FEWER countries to be nuclear-armed, not more.
........Allowing open carry in ALL states IMO would be good ONLY for the gun makers and terrible for society's safety. Even the Police are basically against that.
........And I agree that there are bad psychological ramifications for both children and adults (speeding and dangerous driving seem to have increased)....from the Pandemic which has killed one million US citizens and is still killing them.....just at a lower rate.

Exactly.

I enjoyed this post (and others like it) because it was well written and it showed a slice of life ....growing up in rural MN. To me, that is the REAL VALUE of this forum ........to express past experiences that other readers can learn something from. I never lived in MN, but I could visualize 2 brothers using the woods and woodcraft as a learning experience - a free laboratory to study trees, animals, woods navigation, and weather ; to move about quietly and always in balance........until it turns into an exercise in meditation and introspection. While hunting you are always moving your eyes and looking keenly for movement.
......With respect to your father's rule #3 - I have often heard it this way.......one shot - 1 deer.....3 shots - no deer. This is why I wrote that some experienced hunters carry a single-shot rifle because the action is shorter making the overall length of the rifle shorter with the same barrel length as a longer bolt or semi auto action. That makes the rifle lighter and less clumsy to improve the hunter's movement. For deer, bear, elk, moose, and wild hogs there is normally only one shot and they are gone. It IS possible that a black or brown or polar bear, a wild hog, or a moose could charge a person, but that is unlikely. If that WERE to happen you would be better off with a rifle with a magazine.
.......With respect to your father's wisdom about being a good shot does NOT make you a good hunter. The hard part about hunting either with a gun, bow or even a camera, is to be able to MOVE through the woods in SLOW motion and quietly. Many people can not do that and that is where the meditation comes into play. And also increased concentration and awareness of surroundings. Once while bow hunting in western Oregon, I was in very thick woods where I could hear a herd of elk eating close to me, but the woods were so dense that I did not see them. I was moving very slowly and I was about to take a step forward when I stopped to look at a leaf because something did not seem right about that leaf. There was too much blue sky around it. I slowly moved a branch on my waist and moving it revealed a cliff drop of about 40 feet that I almost stumbled over. I have also almost stepped on a sleeping and curled-up rattlesnake on a path here in Fl. So, the bottom line is that the woods and hiking have many benefits that include forcing concentration and observation skills.
........One hobby that I enjoyed was trying to make my own bow. I even read a book on it by an Alaskan guide. It is a really big challenge. Even finding and seasoning the right wood is difficult. And supposedly making your own arrows is even more difficult using stone arrowheads and feathers, not plastic
.........I did go hog hunting once in Fl. My friend knew some rich people that had special swamp buggies built to hunt in swamps. I told the driver on the one I was in that there were some black animals that looked like wild hogs in the water about 500 yards away. He laughed at me and said, "no way. too big, that is some cattle". I said that I didn't think so. When we got closer he realized that I was right. They let out a bunch of dogs and the chase began. It ended up with one expert hog hunter holding the head of a 250 lb wild piece of muscle and me and my friend holding the back legs. The man in front was in a very dangerous position and he was tiring as he yelled at us to grab the back legs. They did not like to shoot the hog because that destroyed meat, so they used a much more dangerous method. I decided that day that once with that gang was enough for me, too dangerous. But, it did create a memory that I never forgot.

Tal (0P). You make a good point. The National Guard is as much the people today as the Militia was the people in the 1700’s. The big difference is the so called “fire power” of the individual guns (weapons) that people can now (because of technology) possess.

Well, probably, but just the same, automatic carbines, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, howitzers, missiles, land mines, poison gas, bombers, and anti-aircraft guns have been outlawed in private hands since generations before any of us was born.

I think Taltarzac725's sarcastic post merely means he objects to scary-looking black rifles that he doesn't understand. I suspect they scare him because he never served his country and therefore has no idea what a real military weapon looks like. And he's obviously never been hunting or he would understand the difference between a little .223 caliber varmint-hunting gun and a seriously deadly 30-06 deer-hunting rifle.

Taltarzac725 -- since you find this subject so confusing, I have a suggestion. Drive over to Sportsman's Paradise this afternoon and ask them to show you the difference between a .223 round and a 30-06 round. I think you will be able to instantly discern which one is more likely to instantly kill a man. Then ask the guy to show you a .223 rifle and a 30-06 rifle, and see which one "looks" the scariest.

Believe it or not, looks can be deceiving.

Then, try to imagine yourself on a battlefield in 1776, facing an Englishman from 25 yards away, who is shooting at you with a beautifully-crafted "Brown Bess" musket, which fires a 3/4" round ball of lead at twice the speed of sound. You have no armor or protection of any kind and you are fighting the way they fought in those days -- standing in a line, shooting straight ahead. Your odds of surviving the experience are about one in four -- unlike today, when your odds of surviving a modern wartime gun battle using scary black rifles firing 700 hundred rounds a minute from 100 yards away are about 9 to one.

Is it sinking in, yet?

If the problem of lunatics with scary black varmint rifles bothers you, here's an idea.

Instead of trying to outlaw the millions of scary black guns already in circulation, what if we outlawed LUNATICS -- like we did for the 200 years before the asylums were emptied and we started having mass-murder events every month or so?

Your solution is unacceptable. I'm a law abiding citizen. Taking away my Constitutional rights is not acceptable to me. Suggesting that I compromise my Constitutional rights because of evil people, is not acceptable to me.

The solution you propose is based on false logic and will not yield the results you claim. You claim there have been 360 mass shootings so far this year. I'm assuming you have facts to back up that claim. If so, how many people were killed by semi-automatic rifles. That should be an easy number for you to come up with.

While we are waiting for that answer, let's solve another problem. There are 463,634 rape victims on average every year in the US. That number would be zero if we castrate every man in the US and every man entering the US. There are 162,400,000 males in the US and I understand that castrating them all might be expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Statistically, 1 out of 6 women have been the victim of rape or attempted rape. Out of 167,500,000 females in the US that means there are 27,916,667 raped females walking the streets. What a horrific picture that paints for America! Wouldn't you agree that if every man was legally required to get castrated our rape problem would be solved. It is a small ask.

The FBI, DOJ and CDC all say you are wrong and have the data to prove that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd do your homework before making outrageously false claims.

If you really want to solve the problem of mass shootings and at this point I'm beginning to doubt that because you are not taking the solutions seriously. Call out the media for glorifying these evil deeds. Demand they stop giving the killer the notoriety they seek. Encourage everyone to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, get effective training and stop shooters where they stand. Take away their fame and take away their "high score" and the motivation disappears. Why aren't you doing something about this?

Who is talking about open carry? Half of our states, 25, are now Constitutional Carry. Florid is teed up to also be Constitutional Carry. Armed citizens stopped armed criminals 2.5 million times last year. it is estimated that 50-75% of those encounters saved a life. Isn't that awesome!

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem is that mass murder events are increasing and will continue to increase. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

You have brought up "obscene" profits of the gun manufactures (more than once?) they sell guns because people want to own them, not as much for fear of a mass shooter but the run of the mill criminal that has little or no fear of punishment

It would be really nice if you'd start your own thread and not hijack this one. Kindly stay on topic. For this thread it is "What did the founding fathers consider arms".

There is a huge irony here.

Every time a mass shooting occurs, four things happen. 1). Media histrionics blow the entire thing up so out of proportion that it dominates the air and print media for weeks. Not just the shooting but of course vilifying the weapon, psychoanalyzing the shooter, and of course endless interviews of the bereaved, etc. etc. ad endless nauseam. Which then leads to 2). Copycat shooters. Studies have shown that anywhere from 50% to 80% of these shootings are copycat crimes. 1 and 2 together of course produces 3. Anti - Second Amendment political types which commandeer every camera, microphone and reporter within grabbing distance to thunder forth their HATRED OF ALL THINGS GUN and call for, in varying degrees, anything from limitation to outright banning of specific, or all, firearms.

But then comes 4. And 4 follows 1 through 3 as inevitably as water running downhill. Law-abiding folks buy up guns and ammunition like it was going out of style. Gun and ammo factories running 24/7/365 cannot keep up with the demand. This seemed to get into gear in all seriousness on about November 2008, which was the first real gun/ammo shortage I remember. And with each succeeding sequence of events 1 through 3, #4 seems to get worse. And not just guns and ammo; but reloading supplies as well. I did some reloading before coming here. New brass in the popular calibers was hard to find (fortunately I had a lot of old stuff) and magnum pistol primers were scarce as hen's teeth. And buying ammo off the shelves? Depending on where we were in the latest cycle--forget it. Oh, you could find the odd box of Romanian or Russian ammo (if you could put up with the corrosion and spotty performance it caused) but top-shelf American stuff was, again depending on where we were in the cycle, nonexistent.

The numbers are staggering. A CNN article , dated June 4, 2021 , stated the following: "There is no government or national database of gun sales, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation keeps track of pre-sale background checks, an indicator that’s been soaring to record highs.

In March, the FBI reported almost 4.7 million background checks – the most of any month since the agency started keeping track more than 20 years ago, and a whopping 77% increase over March 2019."

The interesting thing is that this report is just the tip of the iceberg; that 77% increase over March 2019 was just the LATEST increase. Background checks and resulting gun ownership has been skyrocketing in just about the same way for the past 14 years. Ther is no accurate count but I've seen estimates that, in the last 14 years, as many as one hundred MILLION guns have been sold to law-abiding Americans. That, folks, is one hell of a lot of guns.

Amazing! The histrionics of the anti-gun folks has done more to put guns into the hands of average Americans than any other one thing. Ever.

Ironic, isn't it?

Law-abiding people buying guns is not the problem. The problem is usually young men getting them so that they can go on shooting sprees. Everything under the sun should be attempted to stop these tragedies from happening. And I had neighbors across the street from me here in the Villages who lost their 14 year old granddaughter in one of these mass murders. (They moved out of the Villages to be near surviving family members). These should be covered by the press so that people will start taking actions to prevent them from continuing. Some gun controls are needed along with red flag laws and especially community awareness of potentials for problems. Empathy and planning for the future are critical.

I think the Founding Fathers would be doing similar things as they were very practical men very well versed in history especially Roman and Greek history.

Law Abiding
 

I bought my guns under existing laws. I have served my country honorably for 20 years and have done my best to conform to what benefits everyone. At this point I can tell you in my own mind, I will never give up what was lawfully purchased; it doesn’t matter if new laws are made to take them away. No one can just come in and change the rules at my expense. Society needs to fix the Dr. Spock mess they created and the media needs to stop attempting the manipulation of us all while pretending they don’t hype shootings for better ratings. Entertainment and news organizations are largely responsible for the whole mess. Problems continue to grow, but I can honestly say guns haven’t perpetuated it.

"With respect to your father's rule #3 - I have often heard it this way.......one shot - 1 deer.....3 shots - no deer. "

True.

Dear hunting back in Northern MN when I was a lad wa always done towards the middle of November, for nine days. Middle of November can get pretty cold up there (easily below zero some days) and sound carries well in those situations--on really cold mornings it was nothing to hear trains over 20 miles away. Opening day especially but other days as well were notorious for the steady sound of gunshots. We'd often hear BANG.....BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG. The stock comment was always "well, another one got away".

We will never find the solution, until we're honest about the problem. And so far, we've not been.

Most of the above are considered "firearms" and therefore LEGAL according to FEDERAL law to possess. Each state has the right to limit them, but federally - they're legit. The others are considered "destructive devices," but not "firearms," and can be legally possessed with appropriate permits from ATF.

Because (which is what this topic is about) - most are considered "firearms," and the Constitution doesn't specify WHICH firearms citizens may or may not possess. And since the Constitution doesn't address "explosive devices," those devices don't even apply in this thread.

You can PURCHASE just about anything. Guy I knew back home had a Sherman Tank parked in his driveway, and a local pawnshop had a small field gun for sale ($5,000). Don't know if it worked or not but seemed to be all there; barrel was clear and even if it had been incapacitated I imagine someone knowledgeable about metalworking could get it back into firing condition pretty quick.

It is perfectly legal (and there are many for sale) to buy surplus fighter jets, many in flyable condition. Trade-A-Plane lists sever MiGs for sale, from $39,000 on up to several million for the newest models. Another source had a MiG-29 for sale for $5 million dollars in "like new" condition. 'Course, "flyable" upon purchase is one thing, but keeping them airworthy considering the probable cost of an annual inspection and prohibitive cost of replacement parts, assuming you can even find them for the older models, would be something else again.

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia

I watch a lot of different channels for news and usually they are quite professional when dealing with mass shootings. Some channels aren't because they have to fill a 24 hour news day and they just repeat the same stories with small variations. Usually interviews of various talking heads who mostly share the same viewpoints with small variations. They might bring someone in as a counterpoint but that is usually to just make themselves look good in comparison.

There are rifles, shotguns, and the like that should not be sold at all to the general public. Some criminals always get around laws but as far as home defense there are many options available that will work very well. Some criminals will get access to weapons that the general public does not.

And the view of the 2nd Amendment creating some kind of right to create a revolution through arming of men and women of sound mind and with righteous motives, etc., I do not buy that the Founding Fathers wanted that. Roman history is full of armies fighting to put their own emperors on the throne and who work to make themselves rich and powerful off their own connection with this chosen emperor. You get endless civil wars through that or someone who claims to be chosen by God.

Rubber bullets? Flare guns? Surely, you jest?
Maybe rubber bullets would scare the bad guy away? Maybe a pop gun would be better?
Flare guns would be just great. Burn the school down while you burn the killer and all the students at the same time.
I thought this was a serious discussion about the second amendment.

I think the Founding Fathers anticipated future generations pondering the meanings of various parts of the Constitution and provided a Supreme Court to interpret and rule when required.

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.

In response to a Sarah_W post. That was a pretty strange ATTEMPTED analogy. But, I have to admit, it was a GREAT DEFLECTION from the subject and my proposed solution. Incidentally, I would be happy with ANY serious SOLUTION put into law. The recent laws passed are too watered down to be worthwhile. I don't think that any rational person needs a 50-round magazine for hunting or any purpose or even for being a FINAL check and balance on a big, bad national government. Actually, if people would like to do something to keep government from going bat-defecation-crazy - I can suggest a much more sane approach.
......We all know that voting in a democracy is a powerful tool. Well, just make it more powerful by requiring every legitimate citizen to vote. That would make voting a MORE powerful tool than it is today in the US. Funny thing.......Australia does it that way (and probably New Zealand) - once again, as with gun laws improving citizen safety, Australia proves itself a superior place to live compared to the US (at least with respect to those 2 important features of life).

.........Remember, mass murder events are increasing in number. At this rate of increase, pretty soon everyone in the US and EVEN TV Land will know of a relative or friend that has been shot during a mass murder event. I would welcome any SOLUTION that would be as effective as stopping sales of semi-auto rifles in the US. And while it would be possible to harden some schools in some neighborhoods. It will be impossible to harden all schools, churches, high school football games, and other group gatherings - that will not be a practical solution. It is ALSO impossible to predict who will be a LUNATIC and turn into a murderer. Better and cheaper to reduce the number of semi-auto rifles in circulation. At this point ALL rifles and shotguns are not the problem, just a sub-set of rifles......namely the semi-automatic ones!

Only one wing considers the decisions unjust. The others gloat.

Just an interesting thought. I recently received an email ad that advertised a Gatling Gun for about $6000 (I think, if memory serves). A Gatling Gun is NOT an automatic or even a semiautomatic weapon but is reported to be able to fire about 200 rounds per minute. If I still lived in my previous home, I think I would entertain the idea of purchasing one. Of course, I had my own firing range and steel knock down targets. I didn't need a tank because I already had a track vehicle with a blade mounted on the front for road work. The 2nd Amend is a wonderful Constitutional right that our fore fathers gave us and I hate to see folks exploit it in such a manner to jeopardize it's existence. I consider the 2nd Amend as a Fourth branch of our government, equal to Congress, Executive branch and the Supreme Court. Each fulfilling an equally weighted mandate to keep this country the most perfect experiment in the history of the world. This gives the "People" equal power in how this country progresses in the world. Just my opinion, of course.

I agree that home break-in is probably the main reason US people purchase guns (years ago it was for the sport of hunting)., I am saying that the profit margin on an AR-15-style weapon is MUCH greater than a hunting rifle. The gun manufacturers point their advertisement toward influencing gun buyers to DESIRE the more expensive, high-profit margin military-style weapons with expensive accessories like 30-round magazines. They have done this by creating the illusion that each gun owner's home will be attacked by a 20 man platoon of crazed, drug-infected, zombie home-burglar death squads - this provides the justification for the purchase of an expensive, "tricked-out" semi-automatic man-killing machines of death - plus they look "COOL" to the Butthead and Beavis reptilian mindset.

When in reality.......a short-barreled shotgun is the best home defense weapon.........and relatively inexpensive.

If one believes the hype put forth by the 2nd Amendment critics, that the vast majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws than are presently in force--then the solution is obvious. The Founding Fathers made sure that there is a method by which the Constitution can be changed. The process is no secret. In fact over the history of the document, 27 amendments have been ratified and thus became part of the Constitution.

Why don't the folks who are critical of the 2nd Amendment implement implement that process? Seems like the obvious answer considering what their criticisms are.

"Reality?" Have you ever fired a shotgun inside a structure, such as a home? Yes, a shotgun is very effective. Yes, it is a very good self defense weapon. However, I hope you are prepared to refurbish your home afterward. I have personally seen how much damage a shotgun does in a home and how messy a body torn apart by a shotgun can be. Thank goodness I did not have to clean up the mess. And you are wrong regarding a shotgun NOT penetrating an interior wall. And I hope you do not have someone else in the house that you are firing that shotgun in when you fire it. Hopefully, you won't hit someone else because the pattern spreads as it moves away from the muzzle, as I am sure you KNOW since you seem to know so much about firearms. Perhaps, you would prefer to use rubber bullets on the intruder or a flare gun? :1rotfl: Personally, if I was better with my throwing arm, maybe I would chuck a few tomatoes to scare the bad guy away :duck:

We had no problem outlawing lunatics for 200 years before they emptied the asylums -- and then we started having monthly mass-murder events. It's called cause-and-effect. In fact, we had semi-automatic rifles with large magazine for 100 of those years, without mass-murder events.

It has been illegal for lunatics to have access to weapons for as long as there have been lunatics and weapons. Turns out, much like thugs and bank robbers, lunatics tend to ignore the law when they go off their nut.

The only people your laws impact are the people who obey the law. They aren't the ones shooting up grade schools, so why do you want to confiscate their constitutional rights?

Its simple math. There are about 400 million semi-automatic weapons in circulation, and only about 10,000 lunatics. Much easier to lock up the lunatics than to confiscate 400 million guns from law-abiding citizens, who you will soon discover will simply ignore your unconstitutional law.

The mentally ill are usually the targets of violence and not those who do it.

We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?

That was very thought provoking!

We already went over the solution. You just don't agree to the answer. The solution to protecting the innocent and defenseless is to harden physical security. Cheaper than almost any other solution. Arming the teachers is not very feasible, as many do not like firearms, therefore probably not very gun-literate. However, in my opinion if one trusts teachers with the mental and physical safety of their children, why would they have a problem with a CCW qualified teacher carrying a firearm? Eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not stop murder. And if someone is naive enough to believe that banning certain types of guns will solve their problem, it won't and they are just living in a fantasy world. Once you ban one type of weapon, it only gives an opening to justify banning other weapons and then other types, etc. Yes, it would happen. Americans are not naive and know how an inch becomes a mile, especially/ESPECIALLY when it comes to overreach.
Remember, when one person can shoot 21 people with a bolt action rifle from a tall building, then banning certain type of weapons won't eliminate murder.

The solution cannot be all-or-nothing, as some seem to see it. I fail to see the logic in refusing to implement methods that would provably lessen the number of shootings, apparently in favor of "answers" that even the most strident opponents of the 2nd. Amendment acknowledge would take decades to implement--even if such a decision is reached and made law, which again, the opponents acknowledge has little chance of happening.

This has been suggested here and in other threads numerous times. Sensationalizing these shootings to the extent that media does, has been shown in study after study to cause "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary but many give a minimum of 50% to a maximum of 80% of these shootings are copycat; choice of weapon, choice of target, etc. have tragic similarities, time after time. We CAN limit the reporting to "just the facts". But we don't. We seem, as a society, to WANT the sensationalizing to happen, even though we know it will result in more dead kids.

No one has yet attempted to give a rational reason why we don't do this.

Most teachers are averse to carrying LETHAL firearms. A flare gun or a rubber bullet shot at an armed intruder could delay his killing of children long enough for some of them to escape and/or the Police show up or a Principal or school guard to get there with a LETHAL lead firing pistol or rifle.
Rubber bullets and flare pistols are NOT a joke - they are better than NOTHING, which most teachers say that they will be carrying ......nothing.
.......And I have talked to a few Police Officers that said that a separate gun loaded with rubber bullets MIGHT be good in certain situations. They were open to the idea. Many Officers are NOT thrilled with a foot chase with a suspected perpetrator and then the decision to shoot them in the back, or not.