That is very obvious. But I did note that he didn't come off as an insulting know it all smart ass, so big KUDOS for that in my book. Also he didn't run off and hide.
"So if a criminal is already prepared and incensed enough to plan on killing someone, then in my view the best countermeasure is to ensure they’re disarmed altogether rather than additional punitive deterrents. "
If there’s democratic consent, then just copy the airport system and use metal detectors and body scanners. Where there’s a will there’s a way!
You're not aware of just how many people are in the US, are you?
Yes it’s more difficult to monitor larger populations. Yet Europe as a whole is comparable to America in terms of size.
We have that already.
Gun clubs employ people so you’d help the economy by storing your guns at a gun club of your choosing.
Mandatory storage would, however.
And if I would rather keep my guns at home that's my choice.
Yes it does, mandating people to keep their property in a specific place, whether its state owned or not, is an infringement and a violation of the 4th Amendment. It might be all fine and dandy in your country of Ireland but here in the USA we have the Bill Of Rights.
True, the way to stop those highly motivated criminals is by having good armed citizens.
I agree on disarming criminals, and we can do that by putting them away. Disarming law abiding citizens does nothing towards disarming criminals.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
why should people do that?
He apparently does not understand that criminals normally cannot be members of gun clubs and are not likely to obey such laws anyway
Criminals were law abiding citizens up until the time of their first offence. Even without guns many of those convicted of murder or rape might not have had any criminal record beforehand.
Your point?
Arming teachers and employing armed security at schools have often been suggested in response to school shootings. Yet we can’t arm young teenage students with guns in case of accidental or negligent use. The problem is that some evil people have no personal limits on the amount of harm they inflict. So it’s not just schools but also isolated incidents of an armed adult assaulting a juvenile. Even without guns there’s an imbalance of physical strength between different ages. With guns a sinister person has an undefeatable advantage against an unarmed juvenile. How can we protect unarmed young people in general? Moreover there’s cases of youths in criminal gangs being armed by others. So young people are vulnerable to both armed adult and teenage criminals. There’s no way to stop an adult who’s already armed giving juvenile criminals their guns.
Exactly.
But we're talking about arming teachers and security, not students.
All the more reason for good people to be armed.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
“People” is a plural term. On face value the statement refers to a group of individuals rather than an individual by themselves.
Alternatively we could enlist more reserve police to expedite police response times. So there’s gun club members, the police, military police, reserve police and soldiers who can all come to our aid against an armed criminal. In major cultural sites like the Eiffel Tower they’ve always soldiers on guard without there being martial law or curfews.