Topic: This is NOT a solution to school shootings...

[Andalharan]

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.

Well, they ignore entirely the part about a militia so the infringing part should be okay. 

Except those are two separate parts of the right. The first right is the right to have a well regulated militia. The second is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Don't try to add a connection where one does not exist. It is funny that you chose the one of two official interpretations that doesn't support your claim. And then, if you look at the other, where the two parts of the right are joined, define a militia. It can either be "An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers" or it could be "The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy." Considering the latter was what essentially fought in the battles of the American Revolution, I'd be tempted to go with that definition. In which case, the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms is protected. Also note that, according to Title 10, USC, Section 311, all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 not serving in the armed forces or state national guard units are considered the unorganized militia, as well as all commissioned female officers of state national guard units.

In other words, damn the Founding Fathers and their ambiguous wording. 

People think that banning guns will solve all the problems. The fact of the matter is that most criminals do not get their guns legally, which means the only people you are in fact keeping the guns from are those that could use them to defend themselves against the aforementioned criminals. One can't really use the UK as a prime example of a successful gun ban either. The rate of violent crime, from what I have seen, has gone up. And you can't really compare the US's violence rate with that of the UK, considering the latter is a few magnitudes smaller, both in area and in population.

Rember, it's not the guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. May it be with a gun, a knife, a piece of pipe or simply a large enough rock, they all are potential deadly, but are not dangerous in and of themselves. All of them can have practical uses: Guns used for hunting and for sport; a knife used to cut up vegetables; the pipe to... well... be a pipe; and a rock, to be a building material or pet... 

People have a foolish idea that police can protect everybody. That assumption is baseless. First off, police are primarily a reactionary force. You call them when there is a problem, and they respond. However, that response takes time, much more time than it takes for a mugger to pull a trigger. And since when do criminals intent on bodily harm let their victims call the police, or anyone for that matter? Most of the time the police will arrive at the scene of a violent crime to pick up the bodies, and to collect evidence. Not come in guns blazing in order to protect the citizen. This leaves the citizen to concern themselves with self-defense, because as great of a job that police men and women do, it often is not enough. 

All this being said, I don't believe arming teachers is really the right way to go about preventing these occurences. School shootings are not common enough to warrant such a drastic action. It is an unfortunate tradgedy when it does happen, but the rate of occurance is not high enough to warrant such a large policy change. Now, letting teachers carry tasers, that I can see being implemented without too much protest.

And in response to the free speech and flag burning issue, as much as I find burning the flag offensive and distasteful, it is protected under the First Amendment as symbolic speech. The same would go for works of art. I do find it ironic that the same people burning the flag to show their dislike of the US government are only able to do so freely because of the right granted to them by that government. Sometimes, I think Americans are a little underappreciative of just how nice our governmental system is. In some countries of the world, you'd be shot for speaking out against the government.

Oh, and Full Metal Geneticist, Ghandi was a great man, who did great things, but he was one man from one country. Not a citizen of every other country, every other region of the world. And what works in one situation does not always work in every situation. America's revolution took place hundreds of years before Ghandi's movement. Attitudes about freedom and justice changed greatly between the two periods. And never forget, the Americans didn't start a violent revolution. We broke away, the British invaded, and things escalated. I'm sure we would have been more than happy had the transition been peaceful, but we had to fight for our freedom. Two different time periods, two different countries, many different people. Don't be close-minded. Realize that your way may not work for everybody. And remember, India's freedom wasn't bloodless. Thousands of people died. So what if the deaths from the American Revolution were from two sides instead of one? The result was the same, wasn't it?

Oh, and that 50:50 chance you have with the gun? That's a hell of a lot better than no chance at all if you didn't. Just a thought.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Actually despite thousands of people dying in India due to Gandhi's freedom movement we hold no ill will to the british because of the way we won our independance. We never saw them as villains cause we can move on beyond that mentality unlike americans have. To date there is one major movie with a british villain... ONE. And thats because its set in colonial times and involves cricket. Its a villain who challenges enemies to cricket matches. Hardly the kind of villainy portrayed as the british in the USA. And put it this way what they did in India was far far worse than anything in the US. And far far more recently we still have individuals who were alive then. So we do know a thing or two about stopping riot

Criminals in the UK don't carry guns for two very good reasons.
1. A gun is expensive since they are so rare in the UK that getting one costs a lot and so using it regularly is expensive.
2. A gun attracts attention. Normally the police would grab you and rush you. A gun would result in you being shot and again getting every policeman in the UK after you.

Only Idiots carry guns. Such that any shooting is often carried out by total amateurs in gangs rather than anyone in crime. The lack of guns reduces such incidents on the whole. Why? Cause it means that carrying a gun is a crime so a lot of criminals stop carrying it to reduce the chance of being caught. Being caught in possesion of a joint is a caution... A gun is a automatic jail sentance. Why would you go to jail for that really expensive piece of metal that can't be used as much as you would like to. So few criminals carry it. And those that do are often the ones carrying the "kick me sign" when the police turn up with better guns and training to deal with them.

Er... My way means that there is no 50:50 chance...
Read again. My way stalls any invader for more than 15 minutes Allowing a decent police force to do its job. You would'nt need guns as people just don't get close enough to you to even use a gun and all but the most determined criminal will give up in 30 seconds after trying to enter. So its safe. Safer than your method. And a lot less likely to kill fido or your kid in the dark by mistake to boot. Are you saying your cops are so crap that while a criminal is attempting to enter this house with bars and sirens going off and lights illuminating him that they are off eating donuts and will only turn up after 15 minutes? Come on thats just silly. A good home security will keep your house safer than any gun.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Except those are two separate parts of the right. The first right is the right to have a well regulated militia. The second is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Don't try to add a connection where one does not exist.

I was making an observation that when people "remember" the amendment they seem to favour the later without recognition of the former. There's no concept of where the amendment came from when they consider how it relates to today. Same with the first amendment.

Flag burning is meaningless. Who really cares if some idiot sets fire to a flag? Where's the damage or harm?

[Guildmage Aech]

Remember, it's not the guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.

But its not people that make people free, its guns that make people free right? Seems like guns are only responsible for things when you want them to be.

Besides which the important difference bettween guns and knifes, pipes, big dogs and cars is that while you can use any of the latter to kill people its a lot harder for a malcontent to go on a killing spree with them than it is with a gun.
Doesn't it worry you at all that about 30,000 americans are killed by guns inside the US every year? I mean, thats roughly 60 times as many as have been killed in Iraq every year since the occupation... its a lot of people you know. Isn't that bad?

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

Actually despite thousands of people dying in India due to Gandhi's freedom movement we hold no ill will to the british because of the way we won our independance. We never saw them as villains cause we can move on beyond that mentality unlike americans have. To date there is one major movie with a british villain... ONE. And thats because its set in colonial times and involves cricket. Its a villain who challenges enemies to cricket matches. Hardly the kind of villainy portrayed as the british in the USA. And put it this way what they did in India was far far worse than anything in the US. And far far more recently we still have individuals who were alive then. So we do know a thing or two about stopping riot

Man I love Lagaan.

No no no a thousand times no, giving teachers guns won't stop people getting shot. In fact, it will do just the opposite, surprisingly...

[The GrimSqueaker]

As futile as this sort of comment usually is: could we try and stay closer to the topic at hand and avoid the entire US/world gun rights/crime statistics kind of argument that we're heading for once more?

No no no a thousand times no, giving teachers guns won't stop people getting shot. In fact, it will do just the opposite, surprisingly...

Don't some schools in the US have security guards stationed within? That would make more sense to me than to attempt to train the teachers to be first responders.

[Kitsune Tsuki]

As futile as this sort of comment usually is: could we try and stay closer to the topic at hand and avoid the entire US/world gun rights/crime statistics kind of argument that we're heading for once more?

No no no a thousand times no, giving teachers guns won't stop people getting shot. In fact, it will do just the opposite, surprisingly...

Don't some schools in the US have security guards stationed within? That would make more sense to me than to attempt to train the teachers to be first responders.

I think some inner city schools do, but I'm not entirely sure.  I know my school cameras watching the outside to keep an eye on any seedy looking people.  The problem there is that it's one more person to pay, and it may make people feel nervous with a security officer being in the building almost constantly.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Yeah but its like the whole "Bowling for Columbine" kids can carry an arse load of guns advert.

Remember the one where that kid pulls out so many guns from his pants that quantum was probably involved.

It adresses the symptom of "kids being violent" as a response.
For example in the UK there were school stabbings. Now you may think that was terrible. The bullies actually killed a kid by stabbing him... as a side guess who was in fault? The bully? THe bullies in both cases are believed to have acted in self defence as the kid they were picking on stabs them, they respond in self defence. The ultimate tragedy is that the kid who was being picked on "brings" this tragedy on himself. Kid's don't know right from wrong. And guns solve problems way to easily without repercussion. They are a easy way as they are'nt risky. I mean you against a knifeman is balanced in his favour but do able. But you against a gun man is almost a foregone conclusion. It does'nt allow you to evaluate your actions.

Even Security Gaurds and scanners... You are totally failing to target the reason why these things occur. I.e People in the US have too many Guns and believe that makes them safe when in reality it just makes them more scared so they buy more guns to make them feel safer.

[Frescadude]

No no no a thousand times no, giving teachers guns won't stop people getting shot. In fact, it will do just the opposite, surprisingly...

Don't some schools in the US have security guards stationed within? That would make more sense to me than to attempt to train the teachers to be first responders.

I think some inner city schools do, but I'm not entirely sure.  I know my school cameras watching the outside to keep an eye on any seedy looking people.  The problem there is that it's one more person to pay, and it may make people feel nervous with a security officer being in the building almost constantly.

My high school, a very suburban place, has security guards.

In response to the original question, I know a few of my teachers who I would really not want to have firearms.  First of all, a few of them are a little crazy, second, one could easily get the weapon from them if they weren't prepared.  The security guards have guns, but if you try to take them, you will be incapacitated before you can get the safety off.  But with some of my teachers, anyone I know could take 'em out with one or two punches and take the gun and start shooting.

[Heatseek3r]

I agree fully with The Full Metal Geneticist.

The problem is, you will have a hard time getting rid of all the guns. There's so much money involved in the whole charade.

[Mrgame]

Giving teachers fguns is very stupid and I see the results of more shootings.
Sure its a gun,train the teacher to use it and carry it.But it costs money to do this for every teacher(school districts don't want to shell out for guns when it could go for a program and new matrials,ect.).

2.It could be easily grabbed from the teacher,leading to violence.3.You have no clue what the teacher is capable of,he or she might sit there and S*** themselves,and not have the balls to use it....doing nothing what so ever as to fight back.
At my school the community police department gives us a police officer.
1 cop at each school I believe unless he has to go help another school(downside)and he has the only gun in the whole school on him,I find this much better,atleast some protection in the school but not crazy.

Getting rid of guns is not a very good solution,there are to many guns in the country.We can not ban guns unless the government does something to our amendment(they won't touch it though),we carry them to defend our nation in case the army cant do it or needs help.

The first nation thing is a bit too much too.We aren't all that rich,we have 4 classes here(least the way I see it)You have the multi millioniares,the rich,the poor,and the poor people on the street.You haven't lived in America,sure it is bad over there in your country, but we have somethnig called gangs,somethnig that not matter how many times tried to stop they come back,they got access to guns,they sell drugs,another problem,they do drive buys and miss the person and kill an inoccent,do you want to chase after gang members who got guns but you have nothing but a nightstick?I don't think so,they just point the gun,laugh,and blow you away.

[Abraxas]

Well thank you for the ON TOPIC comments... the rest don't so much address the immediate issue of guns in school but rather guns in America... and as much as I care about how many guns float around the US, I know that little will ever be done to stop the latter.

As of right now concealed weapons are LEGAL on school grounds AS LONG AS YOU ARE LICENSED. I hate to use wikipedia... but their right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was enacted as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-647, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) on November 29, 1990.

It was subsequently declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by the United States Supreme Court, and was therefore voided.

It's currently unconstitutional to tell licensed individuals that they may not have their weapon on campus... as sorry as I am to inform you...

I brought this up on another forum, mostly Americans, and I find myself fighting for logic. Here are some highlights:

The point is to avoid such tradgedies by bringing up the possibility of other, possibly worse tradgedies resulting from a poor decision.

I agree that that is your point. The problem for your analysis is that trading scenarios works both ways. You forego the benefits of avoiding tragedies with the positive results flowing from good decisions.

Both my parents are teachers and both abhor this idea. More importantly, what do parents think? As a parent (the few that are old enough to be one, of course), how would you feel sending your child to a school that may or may not have teachers armed?

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Er... Defend your country against what? Mexicans? Canadians? I mean they speak spanish and french... One is the most laid back of languages and the other has a history of surrendering... Who are you so terrified of being invaded by...

And to be fair if any opponent who invades you and is stopped by a handgun is seriously biting of more than they can chew.... After all gun ownership is mighty high in afghanistan... has it stopped the invasion? Hell no... Why? Cause armies have bigger guns than people.

And Guns exist in every country... Do you think there are no guns in the UK? The coppers here don't carry guns. Why? The bastard who laughs and blows a cop away... is a dead man. I.e He has bitten of more than he can chew. The police will hunt his ass down like a dog. And more than likely he will die in the process. The average beat man carries nothing more than mace and a nightstick. However almost all police will have access to a local special weapons team who kill idiots like him. AND since guns are so difficult to get hold of and are expensive they are rare. If you actually made guns rare and indeed dangerous to own that gun ownership level in gangs would drop. Why? Gangbanger goes to jail for shooting a cop... fair dos. Gangbanger goes to jail for possesion of gun... Ain't so cool. Its unnecessary grief. Illegal Gun ownership drops. Gun's become liabilities. You don't need guns. This addiction is ludicrous to the extent that you are thinking of adding more guns instead of actually figuring out that guns are the things that allow you to kill people with such callous ease. Putting guns in schools won't do much... For instance what if one of those "security gaurds" who we assume are totally infallible get's shot first? What if he shoots a kid by accident? AND if people are coming to school armed to the teeth to take hostages... Is'nt the security gaurd the first to buy it? Or worse is'nt it totally superfluous that in a hostage situation the security gaurd won't be able to do didly?

And I repeat... You are watching Cops way way way too much...
And I repeat... IF your Country is in the state that all americans seem to describe it...
Start questioning your dumbass "leader" into why the government sucks so much ass that it as the "world's most powerful all singing all dancing government" can't even stop its civilians from misbehaving. So far all i heard is "we need guns cause of Mass Murderers, Rapists, Looters, Terrorists, Children and Canadian Hordes". There are other ways that are more effective and less dangerous to deal with such problems.

Food for thought though... The two biggest "mass murderers" the things that you seem to be most afraid off... were both doctors... Dr. Josef Mengele and Dr. Harold Shipman.... Now will you trust your doctors? Cause its easy to stereotype criminals but its a lot harder to realise that what we think is'nt so cut and shut. Lets go back to the amish event. What about the alleged "ignorance" of the care staff for the obviously deranged man? If they did their job the event would'nt have occured. Thats what should be looked at, not the whole arming people thing.

[Muggins]

Isn't this whole thread ignoring the actual problem? Surely one should be discussing how to prevent school shooting in the first place? Let's face it, even armed teachers are only going to pull a weapon when somebody has already started shooting people. Even if somebody is openly brandishing a weapon, a civilian is not allowed to shoot him until there is incontrovertible proof that there is imminent danger. One might think it dangerous, but the first teacher to shoot first is going to be up on murder charges, or a civil suit.

Basically, the question to ask is why shootings occur. The last few are a little different- adults choosing a school at random to take hostages. Not much you can do about that (especially in an Amish community). Those conducted by the students point to the alienation of those students by the school culture, which is another factor...

James

[Gwaihir]

It's currently unconstitutional to tell licensed individuals that they may not have their weapon on campus... as sorry as I am to inform you...

That's not quite right.  Laws can be passed preventing people from having guns on school grounds.  The reason that the act was struck down by the courts actually had nothing to do with guns.  The constitution limits the power of the federal government.  Congress can only pass laws to regulate things that it is empowerd by the constitution to regulate.  Article I has a lengthy list of things that Congress has power over as well as things that it does not have power over.  In order to pass a law, Congress must show that Article I gives it power to regulate whatever the law is dealing with.  In the case of the gun free school zones act, Congress failed to convince the court that they had constitutional authority on the issue.  Normally the catch all clause that Congress uses to justify just about any law they want to pass is the commerce clause.  The power to regulate interstate commerce has been used to justify all sorts of laws.  Normally the courts give congress a great amount of leeway to pass laws under this clause even if the law is only vaguely related in a distant way to interstate commerce. 

The problem with the gun free school zones act was that it had nothing to do with interstate commerce.  Because of this congress had no authority or power to regulate the issue and the law was struck down as an unconstitutional exercise of power that was not granted by the constitution.  States are traditionally responsible for and granted this type of police power.  Every state is free to pass laws that do exactly what congress tried to do.  Those laws will not be struck down by the Supreme Court.  Congress though is not allowed to unless it can convince the court that the constitution gives it the power to do so.

I have seen several posts addressing my point about the first and second amendments particulary speech that isn't in fact speech.  I was not trying to say that we need to ban those forms of (and I use the term very loosely) speech.  I was trying to demonstrate the inconsistent approach that is used in regard to the two amendments.  The first amendment is interpreted very broadly.  The word is speach, but the interpretation is expression.  In fact the rulings of the courts on the first amendment are more consistent with an amendment that replaces the word speech with the word expression.  Now contrast that with the second amendment.  Though it grants the right to keep and bear arms, and says that that right shall not be infringed, courts have allowed all sorts of infringement on that right.  If they approached the first and second amendments in the same manner, gun control laws of just about any sort would be ruled unconstitutional.  I do not like this inconsistent approach to the constitution.  The court on one hand changes the word from speech to expression to ensure that anything that remotely resembles speech is allowed, then approaches the next amendment in the exact opposite manner by restricting the granted right as expansively as they can without ignoring it all together.

Back to the issue of guns in schools.  Teachers carrying guns around probably is a badish idea.  I don't have the knee jerk negative reaction to the idea that many of you do, but I see the potential for increased rather than decreased risk of dangers.  We don't want teachers losing control of a gun and having it in the hands of a student.  There is a sensible alternative which would give the people in the school some power to protect themselves should an armed gunman begin shooting people.  Keep some guns available so that the teachers if necessary can get them and use them.  Guns aren't terrible difficult to use, and a benefit of Americans loving their guns is that most schools will have a few teachers (the PE teacher in many cases  ) who are quite competent in the use of guns and would glady participate in anual or more frequent training.  This approach would at least allow some form of protection to the people in the school rather than causing them to be sitting ducks in a shooting gallery while they wait for the police to arrive and try to figure out what to do.  As said earlier, police are more likely to investigate the scene of a crime after it is completed than to prevent or stop the crime.

FMGenetisist--your suggestion that poeple turn their home into a fortress is a nice one, but is not practical for many.  Some people do not have the financial means to make the necessary upgrades to their homes.  A gun is a cheap alternative.

--

There is a general mindset among several posters that guns are bad.  They are not.  They are tools that can be used well or misused.  I would like to point out that far more people die each year because of drunk drivers than guns.  Drinking is something with fewer positive benefits than guns, yet is a "right" that people are unwilling to give up.  Drunks kill more people than guns do, yet I don't see the same mindset toward alcohol that is directed toward guns.  If you truly care about preventing people from being killed needlessly, lets ban alcohol too.  Probably not a lot of support for that idea is there.  Drinking is not a constitutionally protected right.  Gun ownership is.  Many people take their constitutional rights very seriously.  Please stop advocating that we give up that right unless you are willing to consistently apply the reasoning to every other behavior or implement which can be used to kill people.

[Twistedstorytella (the 3rd)]

Man arming teachers with guns?  Only stupid american officials could think up of something like that.  All they need are securtity guards (trained ones, not like the ones in my college...the only things they do is say "helloghello? where u id card?" in a thick jaimaican accent) who are armed with a hand pistol and a metal detector.

And there is no bloody "god-given right" to HAVE A BLOODY GUN.  This is bloody insane.  Where the hell in the bible does it say "yes americans may have guns and arm themselves and shoot people 'in self - defence'"  Sure it may be your "god-given right" but im sure, a part of the american population dont see it as a "god - given - right" to carry a gun in self defence... in stead they use this as an excuse to mug people, kill people and generally commit crimes.

This is stupid, the logical thing to do would be to illegalise guns in the U.S and take away everysingle gun and just melt them down or something.

Of course this will be near impossible because some people have it in their heads that its their "right" to carry guns and endanger themselves and other if certain situations occur.

I have to go to college now...english language sucks....

[Gwaihir]

Of course this will be near impossible because some people have it in their heads that its their "right" to carry guns and endanger themselves and other if certain situations occur.

It is not a "right", it is a right.  The second amendment to the constitution of the United States grants us that right!  It is a right in the same way as we have a right to say what we want, believe what we want, have a jury trial and not be compelled to be witnesses against ourselves.

I don't think it is stupid to allow people to defend themselves.  If anything is stupid it is telling people to get shot numerous times while waiting patiently for the police to show up to take pictures of their lifeless corpses.

There is a balance between freedom and security.  Some are tempted to give up many or all of their freedom for the hope of security.  That is what you are advocating. 

We have laws telling bikers to wear helmits--security over freedom. 

Laws regulating the speed we may drive--security over freedom. 

Laws telling us we have to wear seatbelts--security over freedom. 

Laws telling us not to ride in the backs of pickups--security over freedom.

Building codes telling us how to build our homes--security over freedom.

Every time we pass laws to make ourselves feel more secure, we give up a bit of freedom.  At some point we have so many laws designed to make us feel secure that we no longer have our cherished freedom.  We are left with a bland nominally secure life which must be lived under the pressing weight of too many laws.  It is a dangerous game to allow government to take freedom in exchange for the promise of security.

[Locarno]

As of right now concealed weapons are LEGAL on school grounds AS LONG AS YOU ARE LICENSED. I hate to use wikipedia... but their right...

Legal, but against school rules; i.e. you may not be arrested and charged, but it's instant, permenant, no-questions-asked expulsion - and so it damn well should be.

Getting rid of the 'right to bear arms' isn't going to happen, like it or not, which puts it outside the remit of this thread.......second best is (a) make sure you do have some armed security guards, not teachers. Even a PE teacher who fancies himself a bit of a crack shot is no good. Firing range targets don't shoot back.
Either get a police/national guard veteran or don't bother; because if you need him he'll be worse than dangerous. The 'armed guards' from Columbine just ran as soon as the shooting started.

Another important thing to do would be to make it absolutely clear that you are totally responsible for any gun you own; if a child gets hold of their granddad's guns, for example, and the measures taken to make sure they didn't are deemed not to be 'as far as reasonably practicable' (or whatever the US version of that phrase is), THEY will be hauled up in court as an accessory to murder as well.

Regardless of your view on guns, a child - even a teenager - should not be able to get access to automatic and assault weapons.....if he's in a shooting club and hence has his own, as noted, keep them there - in a locker. The 'right to bear arms' doesn't kick in until he's a Citizen of the United States, and strictly speaking that means voting age.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Expensive?

Check this out... A simple security grate is around 120 pounds. Its rated to stop burglars for 5 minutes unless they attach a car to te door and pull it off or they have a experienced lockbreaker... However both ways of circumventing it are extremely expensive. Experienced lockbreakers don't do houses since its way way way too risky for someone whose talents demand a bigger pay off...

Add in some money for security gates for your ground floor windows making it around 240 pounds...
Plus factor in a burglar alarm 340 pounds.
Another 50 pounds for a security light
Another 100 pounds for installation and what have you... 600 pounds. 1200 dollars.
This is for a single house. Flats are more secure than this... And this is excluding the effect of actual housing defences such as double glazed windows and decent doors. Its not that much more expensive than a gun since each addition makes it harder to enter your house for the price and indeed keeps you safer than a gun. Its utter nonsense since you don't do all of this at once. You do it over time. So you buy a decent door and a burglar alarm. That means that its already tough to enter your place. Then you add some grills over the windows, finish off with some security lighting and a security gate for your door. Am damn sure you can save up enough to do such a thing. If you have money to blow on a gun and regular training with the thing and ammo and licenses you have enough to save up for this. Financially it makes a lot more sense as it drops your home insurance costs and indeed once you have installed the stuff it does'nt keep sucking money from you. And at worst you may slam your hand between the security gate and door or the alarm may go off when you are down for a cookie but atleast you won't shoot a loved one by mistake. So I would say its a lot lot lot more cost efficient considering the performance of both systems.

Ther arguments that drunks kill people is a stupid one. Drunks kill people with cars. A car also saves lives. More people are saved by cars than die by them. And drunk driving would be less of an issue in the USA if it had good public transport. In the UK drink driving is rarer and heavily penalised. In Prague its non existant as the public transport system is faster than a car and runs 24 hours. AND since its "the home of lager" most people enjoy a fair few drinks. Surgery kills more people than guns, lets ban surgery! A gun is there to end something's life. Its an object of destruction. And unlike say a range rifle or a fowling piece a handgun's sole role in its life is to kill human beings. It is entirely different to a car or a scalpel or a kitchen knife in that respect. In that its normal use is murder. So they make a bad comparison. Remember the internet joke of banning Dihydrogen Monoxide.

So if your constitution allowed you to kill grannies with machetes would you protect that right? No you would take that right out and bury it. Why? Cause its a damn stupid right. Constitutional protection is different from common sense.

And please please please don't say its a freedom. Freedom to defend yourself is totally different to freedom to carry a tool of murder.
Bikers must wear helmets as its extremely annoying for people to clean the pavement of all the brains
And the restricition of speed is there as a freedom of others. The freedom to walk accross roads without the relative risk of death that comes from people speeding. For that you sacrifice your gas guzzling hot rod's top speed and maintain a more "safe" 30 MPH so that, God forbid you hit someone, they suffer from broken bones not death. You are also less likely to wrap your car round a tree at 30 MPH... Again Seatbelts are law cause we are a bit tired of stupid young men dying when they drive thier cars to fast when they crash and indeed for a brief few seconds of their lives become a physics experiment to conservation of momentum. Same goes for sitting in back of pick up trucks. You are'nt free to hurt other people or die in stupid ways. So far you are listing common sense, not loss of freedom... Compare my "fortress" idea to your gun idea and you will see that it makes more sense to avoid conflict.

And you don't realise what freedom means. Freedom means the ability to make choices within a large framework of rules without impinging on the freedoms of others. So while I am free to listen to music, I am not free to rock out at 2 in the morning on a school night since other people apart from me are affected. It does'nt mean do whatever you feel like. Thats anarchy. And thats the start of the ugly side of man.

[The GrimSqueaker]

I would like to point out that far more people die each year because of drunk drivers than guns.  Drinking is something with fewer positive benefits than guns, yet is a "right" that people are unwilling to give up.  Drunks kill more people than guns do, yet I don't see the same mindset toward alcohol that is directed toward guns.

That's because you've got it arse backwards. You're associating drinking with the injury and ignoring the driving part. Drinking does not kill more people than firearms. Drunk driving does kill people. Since you're equating firearms as tools it would be more appropriate to suggest banning the automobile as it is the tool in question that has been inappropriately used and caused injury. Vehicles also provide far more benefit to society than firearms so you're really barking up the wrong tree there.