Gun Control/Gun Violence in the US

[ff1-10]

Maybe this has nothing to do with anything, but I as I was contemplating this issue the other day, I asked myself, "Would you rather be shot to death or stabbed to death?" and, "Would you rather be blundered to death multiple times or shot once and die?" One bullet is enough, right? I don't know. Just my thoughts. How does this solve anything...?

 

[Razberry Knight]

As much as some people quote the second amendment or conjure up bizarre hypotheticals there's no way so many can genuinely believe these mass killings would still be taking place without firearms. It reeks of paranoid people lying to themselves to preserve their sense of empowerment and morbid fascination with guns.

would you blame anyone here or the victims of firearms for being paranoid? it's not paranoid in a delusional way, its paranoid in a scary way. how many times do we here people dying of sowrds, knives, or forks?


But overall no one is lying to themselves. it s a serious issue, how can someone make masskillings without firearms? can 1 man kill a dozen of people with a fork? a knive? even a sword?

lets be realistic....firearms are on e of the deadliest weapons out there.

 

[Harlequin]

would you blame anyone here or the victims of firearms for being paranoid? it's not paranoid in a delusional way, its paranoid in a scary way. how many times do we here people dying of sowrds, knives, or forks?


But overall no one is lying to themselves. it s a serious issue, how can someone make masskillings without firearms? can 1 man kill a dozen of people with a fork? a knive? even a sword?

lets be realistic....firearms are on e of the deadliest weapons out there.

I was saying the exact opposite of what you think I was saying.

My post makes it abundantly clear that I think there should be a crack down of guns in order to reduce not only the number of mass shootings but even the terrifying idea of having to live at the mercy of your gun owning neighbours' impulses.

 

[Razberry Knight]

your comment did not really do much explaining, but more like against those who were anti-guns.

i like to see japan as an example. guns are illegal there, and look how well they have it with mass killings

 

[Harlequin]

I'll strive to be clearer next time.

 

[Ultimaja]

Oh snap, this thread exists!
I don't know how I overlooked it, being at the top of the page.


So..

Over here in America, we value self-preservation over population control. The blood of every murdered person who doesn't own a gun due to prohibition is on the front steps of the anti-gun business.

It's a bitter fact that maims anti-gun's pompous standing quite considerably; taking away people's protection without the resources or care to promise better protection another way. That's just grimy, inept government that doesn't care for anything but the figures even if it shits on the individuals unlucky enough to get mugged, raped, or killed.

 

[spoonyrogdrumps]

I don't like guns, I will never own a gun, I think all guns and weapons of any kind should be destroyed, and the only weapon I don't mind using is a computer generated one.

 

[Linnaete]

The blood of every murdered person who doesn't own a gun due to prohibition is on the front steps of the anti-gun business.

Rubbish.

It's a bitter fact that maims anti-gun's pompous standing quite considerably; taking away people's protection without the resources or care to promise better protection another way. That's just grimy, inept government that doesn't care for anything but the figures even if it shits on the individuals unlucky enough to get mugged, raped, or killed.

It's a damn shame and an indictment on your society if a gun is looked at as chiefly a friend, a lifesaver and a fundamental necessity to one's survival. Were I a visitor to this planet and I see the gun lobby rhetoric for the first time, forgive me if I think for a moment that Earthen civilisation has crumbled into this Hobbesian free-for-all grab where force for preservation is a true necessity.

But then again I am a Brit, so what do I know? I look at a gun and I see a morbid instrument designed only to wound and kill. I see an instrument that can tear through flesh at the simple pull of a trigger. I see an offensive weapon. And a society encouraged to have weapons in pockets, bags and cabinets, and one where psychological checks are a joke because dollars come first, is frankly, a much more frightening society to live in than one such as ours which as flawed as it is, can at least pride itself with the fact that from the post-Dunblane ban onwards, we have never seen shooting sprees since. I don't want to imagine for a second what our 2011 summer riots would look like if even half the people had weapons.

But I am not optimistic for any kind of substantial change in America. So long as people tightly cling on to a document from the late 18th century which in itself wasn't very unambiguous when it came to arms and militia and thus is only loosely interpreted as such; have this bizarre fetishing of guns as something to be prideful of, and something to glorify to the kids at an early age (seriously, look at this shit) embedded into the popular culture; the gun lobby is formidable when it comes to a war chest and ubiquity; and political leaders are either unwilling or lack the sufficient political capital to effect change, nothing will be done. The status quo remains and it's a bloody one. Don't envy you guys honestly.

 

[Ultimaja]

Rubbish.

It's not rubbish. You take someone's protection, you are to blame if they cannot defend themselves.

It's a damn shame and an indictment on your society if a gun is looked at as chiefly a friend, a lifesaver and a fundamental necessity to one's survival. Were I a visitor to this planet and I see the gun lobby rhetoric for the first time, forgive me if I think for a moment that Earthen civilisation has crumbled into this Hobbesian free-for-all grab where force for preservation is a true necessity.

Yes, it's a damn shame that the world is not Heaven where the baddies are down under. I'm sorry this is has become recent news to Brits.

But I am not optimistic for any kind of substantial change in America. So long as people tightly cling on to a document from the late 18th century which in itself wasn't very unambiguous when it came to arms and militia and thus is only loosely interpreted as such; have this bizarre fetishing of guns as something to be prideful of, and something to glorify to the kids at an early age (seriously, look at this shit) embedded into the popular culture; the gun lobby is formidable when it comes to a war chest and ubiquity; and political leaders are either unwilling or lack the sufficient political capital to effect change, nothing will be done. The status quo remains and it's a bloody one. Don't envy you guys honestly.

People are free to choose self protection, they cannot choose to never have their life potentially threatened.

America is founded on a principle of limited government and staying conformation. In fact, the bigger guns are to guarantee that- there would be a revolution before government was just handed everything that keeps tyranny at bay.

Good for Britain having a couple decades of no guns. Big whoop, open up some history books. The 'status quo' means precisely shit.
No good, armless society has ever worked because crime, war and death do not simply go away. There will be a time when you all are picking up the guns again.

You all are just experiencing a 'culture bliss', and it's gotten to your heads.

 

[Cabaret]

People are free to choose self protection, they cannot choose to never have their life potentially threatened.

True, but a society fuelled by fear is surely not a well functioning one. If people live in a permanent state of fear of potential threat the pressure would doubtlessly turn to a lot of negative feeling and paranoia, which could in turn cause unnecessary outbursts of aggression. I don't think people could flourish in such an environment.

America is founded on a principle of limited government and staying conformation. In fact, the bigger guns are to guarantee that- there would be a revolution before government was just handed everything that keeps tyranny at bay.

While I agree that limited government has its advantages, I think one failing of the system is a lack of provisions for the mentally ill. It's not such a leap to see that people who suffer mental illnesses and have access to guns along with misinterpretations of what limited government actually means in practice and I think you have a perfect storm for unnecessary violence. Though I suppose while potentially dangerous people can readily get guns, it might well be a good idea for everyone else to arm themselves. I think I'd prefer to be a coward and keep a banana by my side, it may be a kind of culture bliss, but the reality is I'm not a very good shot anyway!

 

[Ultimaja]

True, but a society fuelled by fear is surely not a well functioning one. If people live in a permanent state of fear of potential threat the pressure would doubtlessly turn to a lot of negative feeling and paranoia, which could in turn cause unnecessary outbursts of aggression. I don't think people could flourish in such an environment.



While I agree that limited government has its advantages, I think one failing of the system is a lack of provisions for the mentally ill. It's not such a leap to see that people who suffer mental illnesses and have access to guns along with misinterpretations of what limited government actually means in practice and I think you have a perfect storm for unnecessary violence. Though I suppose while potentially dangerous people can readily get guns, it might well be a good idea for everyone else to arm themselves. I think I'd prefer to be a coward and keep a banana by my side, it may be a kind of culture bliss, but the reality is I'm not a very good shot anyway!

It's the price of freedom.

As soon as any government starts making provisions that limit the personal destiny of one for the sake of a whole, beyond the scope of which maintains basic order, it just keeps going and going until something drastic is demanded on the contrary.

America is having a big problem with it's police forces. They have begun to overstep their boundaries. Beyond the higher controversial issues with them such as unnecessary deaths and false arrests, their is a much more common problem in which they intrude on citizen rights.

For example, it is illegal for a police officer in the US to stop you for no reason and demand ID, or your whereabouts or search you. A fundamental aspect of American government is that the police do not have preeminence over citizens. They are public servants.

But that has been completely neglected ever since the liberal notions of government leaning have become standard. These things are happening with police, and then the President attempts to override the 2nd Amendment of the US? That is national sacrilege, and fifty years ago, he would have been impeached or worse- he could even have been charged with treason.
There is a progressive, universal infringement at hand.


There is a much, much bigger picture to be seen, it is not just about 'oh we have guns and people die because of it'.
America is built on a foundational belief which made it a country in the first place- you give it all to government, and you will become the footrest of it's boots. It's just too bad that in this time of human history, we are under a spell which we've never experienced before- the blindsight of vanity.

People are too absorbed in other things to really face the reality of how history repeats itself. We look at terrorist attacks for example as this big horrible thing, and no doubt it is- but it is also nothing new. The shock people have for world changing events is evident to their blissful ignorance, and if a government tries to march on people's freedom, like always, it will provoke a revolution in time.
That is why I speak of the UK's culture bliss. It's just a temporary convenience, and has unfortunately gotten to a lot of people's heads that it is something different.

 

[Cabaret]

It's the price of freedom.

I'm no sure it's a freedom many of us would want. It would create a 'survival of the fittest' society, which would be a very harsh civilisation to live in. On the other hand, I can also see a less distopian outcome of that where it could also work as a deterrent to anti-social/criminal behaviour because the risks would be too high. But again, it seems a high price for a shaky outcome.

As soon as any government starts making provisions that limit the personal destiny of one for the sake of a whole, beyond the scope of which maintains basic order, it just keeps going and going until something drastic is demanded on the contrary.

Yes I certainly agree with you there (it's happening with Britain's health system at the moment in my opinion). But I think there are more ways to put in checks to limit the reach of government. Jeremy Paxman wrote an interesting book 'On royalty' where he made a point which really struck me. He proposed that the royal family is one check that limits the power and corruption of government because changes have to be run by someone and the 'top position' is impossible to get. I'm not so sure this works in practice! But it's an interesting idea. I think that if a government has to make its work more transparent to the people it governs, then it should be an effective check to limit the reach. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, people are happy not bothering to look into the details.

America is having a big problem with it's police forces. They have begun to overstep their boundaries. Beyond the higher controversial issues with them such as unnecessary deaths and false arrests, their is a much more common problem in which they intrude on citizen rights.

For example, it is illegal for a police officer in the US to stop you for no reason and demand ID, or your whereabouts or search you. A fundamental aspect of American government is that the police do not have preeminence over citizens. They are public servants.

Britain is having similar problems at the moment. There is a big buzz over the Stephen Lawrence case again, I'm not sure much more will be achieved, but it seems they are moving towards reminding the police of their position as public servants. However in Britain 'stop and search' is legal, I don't think that will become illegal any time soon.

But that has been completely neglected ever since the liberal notions of government leaning have become standard. These things are happening with police, and then the President attempts to override the 2nd Amendment of the US? That is national sacrilege, and fifty years ago, he would have been impeached or worse- he could even have been charged with treason.
There is a progressive, universal infringement at hand.

I understand that Americans grow up with the constitution as a cornerstone of their belief system. In Britain we grow up with reform as a cornerstone of our belief system (EG The Victorians had a good go at making life better for all by bringing in a lot of progressive reform that was less exploitive to the working class and more 'socialist' in loose terms) So I think we are coming at this from very different viewpoints. Where you see progression as a negative concept, I can't begin to imagine it being anything other than positive!

However, I will say that I think that society's norms and values change over time. We live in a very different world to when the constitution was written. Surely beliefs should adapt to the times? I for one would rather spend time educating myself than defending myself and that's what the argument keeps boiling down to for me; if self protection by gun ownership is the norm then more time is spent being wary and on the defence than it is living life to the qualities I see as important (education, travel, widening cultural horizons etc - I guess everyone would have different ideas there.)

There is a much, much bigger picture to be seen, it is not just about 'oh we have guns and people die because of it'.

I certainly agree with you there!

People are too absorbed in other things to really face the reality of how history repeats itself. We look at terrorist attacks for example as this big horrible thing, and no doubt it is- but it is also nothing new. The shock people have for world changing events is evident to their blissful ignorance, and if a government tries to march on people's freedom, like always, it will provoke a revolution in time.
That is why I speak of the UK's culture bliss. It's just a temporary convenience, and has unfortunately gotten to a lot of people's heads that it is something different.

You don't have to tell me about terrorism, my family's from Northern Ireland. I grew up in mainland Britain where the daily news was bombing, shooting and hunger strikes and they're still bloody at it, though less violently nowadays.

I'm not sure revolutions are as easy to muster though, in a country as big as America, I can't see it being an easy thing to get together and I'm sure the issues of New York are very different to those in Chicargo for example.

However in the Ukraine, just that has in effect happened, but the problem with revolution is that the outcome may not be desirable. A lot of Ukrainians are saying that the people in power now are very right wing and not representative of the country's choice. It was essentially a power grab that was successful, but at a price that the Ukraine has now lost the Crimea, which has been effectively grabbed by Russia. I certainly believe that the previous government was under Russia's thumb and not working in the best interests of the people, but by grabbing power violently and by means of revolution I don't think anyone has a fair or better outcome. I guess time will tell on that one.

 

[Ultimaja]

If there's a main point to be made about why citizens of a country should have a right to bear arms, it is all revealed right here:



History gives us a lesson, a lesson that the UK has forsaken.

 

[iSmiff]

If there's a main point to be made about why citizens of a country should have a right to bear arms, it is all revealed right here:

View attachment 3368

History gives us a lesson, a lesson that the UK has forsaken.

comparisons like this are utterly ridiculous. Literally the only argument you guys ever seem to revert back to ultimately is 'OH ITS THIS AND THAT AMENDMENT'. Laws can get outdated you know. I'm sure in the time of self-policing then carrying a weapon was normal but in this day and age it's need must. You have guns because there are guns that you feel you need to defend yourselves from. If there were no guns in the first place, you wouldn't feel the need for guns. I really do struggle to understand the necessity of it at all. Sport, sure. We have sport here in the UK too, but also have crazy strict regulations. What will it take for you to understand that the situation has gotten out of control? Your family member to be gunned down in a disagreement? I think the saddest part of that would be the attitude of 'If he had had a gun he could have defended himself'. Arming people who aren't responsible is just stupid. Being responsible enough to drive is , rightly or wrongly, determined by age - being responsible enough to own a firearm should be a much more difficult process than it is. Let's just say you never hear anyone say in the UK 'I wish we had guns'. Why? Because it's outrageous. YOU DONT NEED THEM.

I think ultimately it boils down to blind patriotism. I'm sure if it was part of our way of life over here then we wouldn't be happy with someone trying to change it but luckily it isn't and we aren't shrouded by that level of blind patriotism.

 

[Ultimaja]

comparisons like this are utterly ridiculous. Literally the only argument you guys ever seem to revert back to ultimately is 'OH ITS THIS AND THAT AMENDMENT'. Laws can get outdated you know. I'm sure in the time of self-policing then carrying a weapon was normal but in this day and age it's need must. You have guns because there are guns that you feel you need to defend yourselves from. If there were no guns in the first place, you wouldn't feel the need for guns. I really do struggle to understand the necessity of it at all. Sport, sure. We have sport here in the UK too, but also have crazy strict regulations. What will it take for you to understand that the situation has gotten out of control? Your family member to be gunned down in a disagreement? I think the saddest part of that would be the attitude of 'If he had had a gun he could have defended himself'. Arming people who aren't responsible is just stupid. Being responsible enough to drive is , rightly or wrongly, determined by age - being responsible enough to own a firearm should be a much more difficult process than it is. Let's just say you never hear anyone say in the UK 'I wish we had guns'. Why? Because it's outrageous. YOU DONT NEED THEM.

I think ultimately it boils down to blind patriotism. I'm sure if it was part of our way of life over here then we wouldn't be happy with someone trying to change it but luckily it isn't and we aren't shrouded by that level of blind patriotism.

How long has your country gone without guns?
Now put that in the timeline of human history.

The only thing outdated seems to be history books- that's what you should be saying. The UK blows it's trumpet and worships itself in this big moral supremacy over the past few decades, and nothing really satisfies the US more really.
Because your countries ridiculous antics are nothing new, this is not the first time you all have gone without arms, and have placed them back when an issue arises before taking them back again.
Quite frankly the UK trying to tell other people what and what isn't needed is laughable.

Every time a person is murdered in your country, they needed a gun to save them. You failed to saved them, but you took their guns. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.
Why should anybody have to die because of your countries need for population control? Your country doesn't give a shit about personal liberty, just good statistics.
And speaking of which, there's no suprise why in-home robberies are as common as the cold in your 'gun free heaven'. Not going to share that statistic though, right?

We need them because that's what common fucking sense tells of mankind. We are an adversarial species, I don't understand why your lot can't just lay off the liberal crackpot and just wake up. If it works for you, fine. In a few more decades, or perhaps even within, it will not. You'll probably need somebody with guns to kill your enemy and save you.
Nothing new there either.

 

[Shenorai]

What people fail to realize is there are far more murders committed with more common items than guns. Like saaay... baseball bats, crowbars, axes, kitchen knives, broken bottles, etc. etc. There is no permit needed to get ahold of THOSE items and they are easily utilized as weaponry. Yet these items aren't considered evil. Just like how guns shouldn't be considered evil. To quote from Tales of Phantasia, "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind."

There will always be a need to defend oneself from others with ill will, be it on the battlefield, on the way home, or even in supposed "gun free zones" like schools. However, as we continue to find ways to improve our own weaponry, we seek ways to meet those improvements with weapons of our own.

But there is something that is severely lacking when it comes to humans handling guns or any other tools that would be considered weapons. That something is respect for the tools themselves.

Let's think hard about where we first encounter the very idea of firearms. Did you first discover guns because your parents were hunters? Were there soldiers in your family? Did you see an action-packed show or movie with a firefight? Was it a video game you played over and over until you've fully completed it? Or did you live in daily fear of gunshots right outside of your window?

These roots define how we think of guns. And it is from here that we determine whether or not a gun is a toy, a tool, or an intimidating weapon.

The hunters teach their young that their rifles are to be used for obtaining food. It is, indeed, a dangerous tool because it takes a life in order to sustain a life. These people have possibly the best view of how to respect firearms.

The soldiers teach their young that their weapons were used to defend their country against those who threaten their way of life. They know first hand just how deadly these tools are and also have the training to know better than to simply use it on any and every threat to their home. They know not to use guns unless it's absolutely necessary.

Those who fear walking outside because of gang wars and drive by's and other such attacks know that the world is a very dangerous place. You so much as wear the wrong colors or don't respond correctly when someone flashes a sign at you, you're dead. These people have guns out of necessity and tend to be more hasty when defending themselves, their families, and their homes.

Those who discover guns through games and other media are the ones to be concerned about. They see guns as toys rather than something to be feared and respected. It is because this generation is exposed to more and more guns and a shockingly earlier age that we really ought to have classes about guns in public schools. "But Shen, that's absurd! Schools are gun-free zones for a reason!" Which hasn't stopped school shootings any, now has it? Abstinence and sheltering our 'sweet and innocent' children from weapons and other important matters will not stamp out the fact that guns and those other important matters exist. But if we encourage an understanding of what the weapon was made for, where its roots come from, and remind them that lives are not something to take lightly when handling them, perhaps the violence will go down.

By a small percentage, perhaps, but it's a start.

 

[greenyxi]

I'm surprised anyone with an ounce of religion inside themselves can see weapons as a good thing. I'm sure murder isn't in the bible, for example. Sure, you can say that it's self-defence, but isn't a stun gun perfectly fine? Isn't a knife to the leg? Isn't an apple to the eye?

Guns are pointless except for being overly harmful. You don't need to kill someone to defend yourself.

Don't get me started on bigger guns either...

 

[Ultimaja]

I'm surprised anyone with an ounce of religion inside themselves can see weapons as a good thing. I'm sure murder isn't in the bible, for example. Sure, you can say that it's self-defence, but isn't a stun gun perfectly fine? Isn't a knife to the leg? Isn't an apple to the eye?

Guns are pointless except for being overly harmful. You don't need to kill someone to defend yourself.

Don't get me started on bigger guns either...

The Church actually slants toward the notions of anti-guns.
Although I am Catholic, it does not keep me from disagreeing. Unless the pope infallibly declares something, I have no obligation to blindly agree.

I have qualms with the very idea that we must be armed. Who wouldn't? No sane person could possibly like death and instruments thereof.
But the fact remains that the Christianity also holds to other truths. Think for example Peter and his obligation to be armed when they left for the Garden of Gethsemane.

Sure, Christ told him that whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword, but he was also the one to tell him to bring a sword in the first place.
The moral is obvious- death in vain is unholy, but self preservation is not vain. Sure, don't look to kill, but there is nothing wrong in disabling them from harming you.

And when you strip a nation of guns without the potential to keep them from all harms way, you are responsible for any person who is murdered. You are obligated to pay back any losses if one is mugged, you are the parent of your country. Would you let one son die for another, again and again? Or do you tell them to all equally provide their protection?

It is a parenthood failed- one has replaced personal liberty for population control, one of the first steps, as history has held true for ages, into autocracy. And history repeats itself.
The UK should know that better then anybody, but apparently they are the only ones who don't know.

 

[CassinoChips]

If there's a main point to be made about why citizens of a country should have a right to bear arms, it is all revealed right here:

View attachment 3368

History gives us a lesson, a lesson that the UK has forsaken.

Ah yes. Did you know that Hitler actually expanded the use of guns when he originally came into power? Because German citizens were not allowed to carry guns under the laws of the Weimar Republic (1919). In 1938, “The ... revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition." But please, continue to rely on bad history to make your argument.

“As for Stalin,” Bartov continued, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.”

What people fail to realize is there are far more murders committed with more common items than guns. Like saaay... baseball bats, crowbars, axes, kitchen knives, broken bottles, etc. etc. There is no permit needed to get ahold of THOSE items and they are easily utilized as weaponry. Yet these items aren't considered evil. Just like how guns shouldn't be considered evil. To quote from Tales of Phantasia, "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind."

Uh, no. Murders committed by firearms make up greater than 50% of total murders in every state of the union except for 7 in 2010. And all of those states had less than 100 total murders, putting them in the bottom quartile. In total, firearm murders make up approximately 60% of all murders in the country. Therefore, firearm murders are more common than murders by any other instrument combined.

You so much as wear the wrong colors or don't respond correctly when someone flashes a sign at you, you're dead.

None of this is true.

These people have guns out of necessity and tend to be more hasty when defending themselves, their families, and their homes.

That necessity is created by others having guns. Remove the access to guns, and there is no need to have a gun to defend yourself. You've created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who discover guns through games and other media are the ones to be concerned about. They see guns as toys rather than something to be feared and respected. It is because this generation is exposed to more and more guns and a shockingly earlier age that we really ought to have classes about guns in public schools. "But Shen, that's absurd! Schools are gun-free zones for a reason!" Which hasn't stopped school shootings any, now has it? Abstinence and sheltering our 'sweet and innocent' children from weapons and other important matters will not stamp out the fact that guns and those other important matters exist. But if we encourage an understanding of what the weapon was made for, where its roots come from, and remind them that lives are not something to take lightly when handling them, perhaps the violence will go down.

Yes, because what walking sacks of hormonal instability need is access to guns. That makes sense.

I teach high school students. I have discussed this with fellow staff members. Literally none of them think having guns on campus (other than the one carried by the SRO, because he is a county sheriff) is a good idea. And we as a staff cross the entire political spectrum.

And for the record, there is or was a shooting team at the other HS in the county. They go/went off campus to a firing range to practice. Because bringing guns on campus would be stupid.

 

[Shenorai]

Yes, because what walking sacks of hormonal instability need is access to guns. That makes sense.

I teach high school students. I have discussed this with fellow staff members. Literally none of them think having guns on campus (other than the one carried by the SRO, because he is a county sheriff) is a good idea. And we as a staff cross the entire political spectrum.

And for the record, there is or was a shooting team at the other HS in the county. They go/went off campus to a firing range to practice. Because bringing guns on campus would be stupid.

Right, let's just forget the fact that the tools aren't the real problem; the people are.

Think about the mentality of the age group you are thinking of. You are immediately assuming that high schoolers - the group that already assume they know everything there is to know about life, the universe, and everything simply because they are fast approaching adulthood - are the group to teach about what a gun does to a life, regardless if it's human or not.

You see, children actually begin to reach the age of reason (and indeed, learn how to lie as well) at the early age of 7 or 8 years old. We get so wrapped up with teaching kids the building blocks of language, mathematics, science, etc. that we completely forget that there are other very important behavioral lessons. Parents won't delve into it because they're convinced that it's the job of the government and the school systems to teach the lessons for them.

This is the age where the value of life needs to be taught. Where we teach children the difference between help and harm. Where we show chain reactions on a human scale by showing how the action of one person affects everyone around them. Explain why we feel grief when we lose someone dear to us. Make life itself valuable in these young eyes before they take everything attached to it for granted. And most importantly, teach the difference between a tool, a toy, and a person.

There was no such lesson in my schools until about 8th grade. Our grade gathered in an assembly as some guy dressed as a hermit walked around before us, going on about the most important needs that a human has; food, water, shelter, and love (ie, social interaction). Went on about the differences about wants and needs and how the inability to recognize the difference often led to conflict. At times, the conflicts would lead to death. But by that age, I simply didn't care for what he had to say. If such an assembly was held four or five years beforehand, perhaps his words would have had a greater impact upon the audience as a whole. Those teenage/preteen years have the tendency to shut out a lot of things.

Are guns required to be involved in such a lesson? Outside of the tool/toy lesson, perhaps not.