MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I’m not sure I’d be alive had some of my teachers had guns. 😀
I'm still amazed the prayers haven't worked.
A couple of hours ago, Trump Tweeted that he didn't say "give teachers guns". His explanation clarifies that he, erm, wants to give teachers guns instead.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966650397002813440
Trump is beyond words now.....
His supporters equally tragic..
my solution to the problem
I’m not sure I’d be alive had some of my teachers had guns
Nor me if the amount of times I was hit by a board rubber are anything to go by
Apart from this one
What I said was to look at the possibility of giving “concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience - only the best. 20% of teachers
You see, we forgot about that SAS branch of the teachers union........they can teach you at 1000 yards and you'll never see them coming
His explanation clarifies that he, erm, wants to give teachers guns instead.
concealed guns though. It makes all the difference.
I do like his idea of best 20%. Which leaving aside that seems a rather high number of people who could be trusted to be competent in shooting in a school also runs into the problem that its either 20% of all teachers, in which case schools may either have all teachers armed or none, or the best 20% in each school which has the problem in some schools the passing grade might be rather low.
has anyone asked the other 80% of teachers who are unarmed what their opinion is on being the first target on the nutters radar ?
I know I'm generalising here but from memory, and from my daughters parents evening last week, teachers generally fall into two categories. I doubt America will be much different
The vast majority are Guardian-reading, liberal, cardigan-wearing, organic-quinoa-munching peaceful types who would leave their jobs rather than carry a gun, then there's the odd terrifying psychopath thrown in, who should never ever be given a loaded firearm EVER
Hasn't Donald Trump just tweeted the plot of Kindergarten Cop?
We've seen the movie RoboCop, right?
We've seen Boston Dynamics robots?
Wikipedia exists
Google Scholar exists
RoboTeach
What could possibly go wrong?
Click [url= https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsingletrackworld.com%2Fforum%2Ftopic%2Famericans-and-their-gun-laws%2F ]Here[/url]
The deluded ramblings of an utter maniac.
eg.
<div>
<div title="More">What many people don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, is that Wayne, Chris and the folks who work so hard at the @NRA are Great People and Great American Patriots. They love our Country and will do the right thing. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!</div>
</div>
<div class="js-tweet-text-container">
<p lang="en" data-aria-label-part="0">what the actual..?</p>
</div>
300m unregistered guns in circulation. What’s your plan to put that Genie back in the bottle?
Ban the sale of bullets and wait. Might take a while but finite resources eventually run out.
It’s a sticking plaster
Maybe it is. So what? What's wrong with sticking plasters? Sure, they're got going to do much for major trauma but they're not going to do any harm either are they.
what people (IMO rightly) recognise is that it’s the start of a slippery slope
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
You see, we forgot about that SAS branch of the teachers union……..they can teach you at 1000 yards and you’ll never see them coming
You’re aware, presumably, that the USA have run a highly effective “troops to teachers” second career programme for many years now?
The deluded ramblings of an utter maniac.
Or someone who received large donations and other support from the NRA.
Bit surprising actually. Generally his loyalty seems nonexistant. Guess there is a difference between those who might give him more money vs those employees whose usefulness is compromised.
Drain the swamp and build a firing range.
So the best way to go forward is to arm 20% of teachers, leave 80% unprotected and hope that you can get the ones from the army who could actually shoot well (it's not that many) into the right place at the right time?
This guy have you covered, he can make a mean sandwich and take down bad guys
Just when you think the NRA couldn't stoop any lower.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/22/nra-wayne-lapierre-gun-control-cpac-speech-2018
IMHO guns in the classroom are an utterly shite idea for 2 reasons:
1. We'd end up with more dead teachers
2. We'd end up with more dead students
It's completely ****ing hatstand as an idea.
It’s completely **** hatstand as an idea.
You missed the key third and fourth points.
3 By doing this instead of something more effective like some firearms regulation you wont impact the profits for the firearms companies.
4 Even better you will be selling more guns and might even be able to run the official training courses so even more quids in.
Or someone who received large donations and other support from the NRA.
"eg." probably hidden by the code rubbish, but that was just a single example. Not all posts are nra related
I heard the NRA guy's speech on the radio on the way home. And sadly - he's right. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby. And if schools aren't to be soft targets, that means more trained people with guns at schools. We accept it at airports, at public events, concerts.... why not at schools?
But the two aren't exclusive - clearly the elephant / room solution is that the 'bad*' guys shouldn't be able to get guns, and certainly shouldn't be able to get semi- or fully automatic weapons capable of wreaking devastation. But they can, and they have and until that's fixed then I can't see an alternative. It'd be great to wave a wand and do away with them overnight but even if America had the appetite, and let's face it they don't, it'd take years.
Honestly, and I almost don't want to say this - but I live in fear that ISIS or IS (or whoever they are this week) might not see this sort of attack and think it's a legitimate soft target in the UK; or are even they moral enough that a school is too far? If we protect other public venues where large groups gather, why not schools?
* and it's not even as simple as fix the gun availability issue and in the meantime protect schools; the socio-economic-political issues that create the kinds of sick individuals, whether true mental illness or twisted ideology, that does this sort of thing, has to be dealt with too.
There is no single answer, and sadly the NRA guy is actually right in part of it, even if it is just as a stopgap while the real issue is fixed.
The practical solutions are easy.
They are not happening because the politicians are owned by commerce.
Same reason wrong stuff happens in most countries.
You’re aware, presumably, that the USA have run a highly effective “troops to teachers” second career programme for many years now?
I always wondered where all the good guys had gone when the Fort Hood shoot-up happened.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby
We have that already, it's the police firearms units.
We have exaclty the same scenario here with motor vehicles btw, its not a US thing or a Gun thing its a moneys more important than people thing.
You’re aware, presumably, that the USA have run a highly effective “troops to teachers” second career programme for many years now?
Maybe the ones who opened fire on protesters at Kent State University?
There’s no way I’d trust an ex-serviceman turned teacher with a handgun in a schoolroom, far too many possibilities of latent PTSD.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby. And if schools aren’t to be soft targets, that means more trained people with guns at schools.
Philando Castile was a teacher with a gun, who was deliberately executed by someone else with a gun, just because they had a gun.
We have exaclty the same scenario here with motor vehicles btw
No, we don't, as explained in detail a few pages back.
Do you mean what Hugo said?
If so then I disagree, misuse of guns is a problem in the US, misuse of vehicles is a problem in the UK(and most other countries)
We could quite easily drive (no pun) down the harm caused by motor vehicles significantly by regulating there design and use with practically no loss of amenity.
We dont do it because manufacturers, financiers, insurers, fuellers and transport firms give money to our politicians.
Its exactly the same as Guns in the US.
[quote=wilbert]
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Its exactly the same as Guns in the US.
</div>
er, no it isn't.
Everyday, motor vehicles bring enormous personal freedom, leverage huge financial growth and even save lives (ambulance, fire truck etc).
Guns, er, what do they do on a daily basis? If the US banned them tomorrow then some people would have to find some other hobbies but the world hasn't lost much, and yet it has gained a lot.
"We have that already, it’s the police firearms units."
Who are always near a school, justin case.
We have that already, it’s the police firearms units.
Yes but the laws of physics make it unlikely that they will be there in time
Surely the reason schools are a target is not that they are soft targets but its because the majority of shooters are a student or ex students with mental illness who blame the school and its pupils for something.
They're in the bushes . . . Obvs.
Surely the reason schools are a target is not that they are soft targets but its because the majority of shooters are a student or ex students with mental illness who blame the school and its pupils for something.
Exactly. This thought/fear that their schools and homes are being targeted by marauding gangs of armed criminals is just absurd. It's a fear the Republicans and the NRA have been perpetuating for decades, in order to maintain the status quo.
Edit: Yaaayyy! The formatting buttons have returned. And the preview button works. I see the hamsters have finally returned from holiday.
I would bring in gun licences . With a built in escalator so the more guns you have , the rate doubles each time. So 1 gun = $100 2 guns = $200 , 3 guns = $600 etc. Try to stop mini arsenals of weapons .
To buy ammo for your 9mm Beretta you need to show a licence for a 9mm , and a box of 7.62 wont be tacked on to the sale if there is no licence for a 7.62 weapon.
All weapons to be made 1 pull = 1 shot , no semi auto's or full auto's.
All weapons to be modified to take 5 rounds only maximum. so your std revolver is fine , Everything else has to go to a gunsmiths for magazine modification. Only done with a licenced weapon.
Tax ammo as well as restrict it to licence holders only. I know it will drive thousands of weapons underground into the black market , but there already are thousands of weapons in the underground black market.
Make licences available to over 21's only. with caveats for military or llaw enforcemnt .
Bring in fines and harsher punishments for anyone found with a non - complying weapon. Make it a self funding exercise . Guns are no cheap so if you can afford thousands for a H&K then you can afford hundreds for licencing and ammo.
Tax ammo as well as restrict it to licence holders only. I know it will drive thousands of weapons underground into the black market , but there already are thousands of weapons in the underground black market.
As Chris Rock said: You make bullets cost $5000 each, there will no longer be any innocent bystanders.
Max torque, I said without loss of amenity, vehicles could be made much less harmful whilst still providing personal freedom.
Two tonne Porsches that can travel at 200mph don't provide any more freedom than a 1100kg hatchback.
The same as a AR15 provides no more protection anyone practically needs compared to a Revolver.
We have unnecessary Guns(US) and Cars(everywhere) because they make money and are fun.
So take the sports marketing (and subsequent idolatry) out of both products regulate there size and power, properly licence their use and save lives, no loss of anything except profit.
How many people go on killing sprees in schools using 4x4 cars?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby
Nope.
The best way is to have several good guys who aint only "good" but are highly trained and are not only well armed but well armoured. Then make sure they can isolate the bad guy somewhere where the risk to innocents and the good guys is minimal so if necessary the good guys can take turns until the bad guy collapses.
However as with most things prevention is far better than cure. If the bad guy cant get a gun its a lot easier.
We accept it at airports, at public events, concerts…. why not at schools?
Ohhh. I know the answer to this one. We dont.
Its accepted at major airports, at some public events and some concerts but not all. To get sufficient people to cover all the schools who are trained to an acceptable level would be rather costly. We already dont have enough armed cops.
If you use inadequately trained people they will if anything increase the risk. Its like how statistics indicate the 911 attack carried on killing for months afterwards as people drove instead of flying and so more fatal car accidents occurred.
Thats not the argument Mikey, read back.
But actually you make another comparison quite nicely.
People have been sold guns and cars so effectivly that any suggestion of regulation generates vociferous and often illogical defence from people addicted to them.
People have been sold guns and cars so effectivly that any suggestion of regulation generates anger from people addicted to them.
Well apart from cars do have regulations. You have to pass a test to be allowed to drive on the road and cars are generally expected to be of a certain standard. Depending where you are various laws are used to try and increase safety.
Now personally I think they could be improved but comparing them to firearms is absolutely nuts. Without major changes in our infrastructure and investment in various areas it will be hard to move away from cars. Whereas ban AR-15s and similar military rifle derivatives and the impact will be minimal.
Jesus wept, we’re back on to cars again.
I have, and your argument is erroneous and irrelevant here. However, to respond to your point directly: 4x4s have not been found to be any more dangerous than other cars. In fact:
The Volvo XC90 and the Nissan X-Trail managed two stars, putting the Audi TT Roadster to shame - it scored no stars, along with the Skoda Superb and the Suzuki Grand Vitara
Taken from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/2730922/Is-it-better-to-be-hit-by-a-4x4.html
Assuming you are referring to me in your last sentence: I only use my car when I have to and cycle/walk/run the rest of the time. When I'm not going to site, my car doesn't move Monday-Friday.
Anyway, stop trying to derail the discussion about America's gun problem with your car nonsense.
Sorry anger was a poor choice of words so edited.
Its not really about cars, its saying we do the same..accept loss if life for commerce and fun.
impossible to argue this. you will not, i repeat will not ever get the gun mad yanks to ever give up their weapons. its basically meth to them.
You disagree, thats fine, try doing it without being abusive.
I didnt say 4x4 are more dangerous, I you are just too keen to defend your preference, same as those who like AR15’s which is also why its not a derailment.
Anyway I’ll let you carry in making noises about them crazy yanks, sure they're not just like you at all.
So why reference a "two tonne Porsche"?
you are just too keen to defend your preference
Eh? I drive a Ford Focus, and probably do less than 6000 miles/year.
Anyway I’ll let you carry in making noises about them crazy yanks, sure they’re not just like you at all.
This thread is all about Americans [I'll refrain from using casual racism] you loon.
To understand the real scale of the problem, guns are promoted as "Fun for all the family"
I'm not disagreeing with any of the suggestions for gun control, but it ain't gonna happen and even if it was to, it still wouldn't happen overnight.
What do we do now - this minute?
What do we do now – this minute?
Send thoughts and prayers.
Wait for the next time.
And the next.
And the next.
Etc.
Nuke the NRA from space
Two tonne Porsches that can travel at 200mph don’t provide any more freedom than a 1100kg hatchback.
The same as a AR15 provides no more protection anyone practically needs compared to a Revolver.
Your solution to the problem of cars that are too fast is slower cars. I can get behind that.
Your solution to guns that are too automatic is handguns. You're a stone bonker, sorry.
These two things are not remotely comparable. Most gun deaths in the US are instant suicides. Whilst it's possible to gas yourself with a car in an enclosed space that takes time, and it's kinda tricky (but not impossible) to run yourself over. I don't know what the stats are for intentional behind-the-wheel suicides but I'd expect it to be statistically insignificant.
STOP THE PRESSES They've fixed the problem!
The Florida House — the same lawmakers who rejected a ban on assault weapons while declaring porn a health risk — has finally figured out a way to prevent more gun violence.
They’re going to put the words “In God We Trust” in every classroom.
The bill (HB 839) would require all public schools to post the state motto, “In God We Trust,” in a “conspicuous place.”
Blah blah blah..... and the ridiculous false comparison, blind-alley, tangential discussions go on.....
Bottom line is: do people agree that access to firearms, or to particular subcategories of firearms, should be restricted - or should it be a free-for-all?
Most sane people believe that yes, there should be some restrictions on firearms ownership. Even most NRA members believe this. And of course there ARE gun controls in the US - the issue is that they are not tight enough to stop the bad guys getting guns.
So the debate actually needs to be around: "how do we make gun controls more effective" - rather than whether teachers should be armed, whether anyone needs a 200mph Porsche, or if cyclists need to wear a helmet. Engaging people/trolls at that level re-baselines the debate, and effectively takes us/them backwards.
Given the issue of circulating firearm volume - I would be inclined to agree that restricting the sale of ammunition in some way would be a good start. You can still buy armor-piercing ammunition in some states ffs.
Well after all this blatant horseshit about getting more guns into schools, about how "mass shootings happen in gun free zones", about how shooters are all cowards and won't go somewhere there are armed guards, about how the best place to keep you safe from bad guys is to have good guys with guns...
There was an armed deputy there at the time. It achieved **** all. It put off no one. The shooting didn't happen in a gun free zone. Putting guns into schools doesn't stop shootings. And the people peddling this tired, fatuous bullshit didn't even bother to check first to see if there was an armed officer there.
Of course, none of this will matter because they're effortlessly pivoting to blaming the deputy.
Of course, none of this will matter because they’re effortlessly pivoting to blaming the deputy.
Over on rightbart they've pivoted from yeah give guns to teachers as gun free zones are nutter magnets to see you can't rely on the police and fbi to protect you so everyone should be armed.
22 years next month since Dunblane and no mass or school shootings since. The gun laws introduced afterwards seem so simple but across the pond we are sadly dealing with idiots.
The school armed and trained officer didn’t intervene.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634
No details why, no idea how I’d react in such a situation or if indeed there was time but shows that armimg people to fend of such attacks is pretty futile.
22 years next month since Dunblane and no mass or school shootings since.
You're forgetting Derrick Bird who killed 12 in Cumbria in 2010.
True yes I did forget about the Cumbria shootings.
we need Gazza stationed in every school, with a bucket of fried chicken.
Sad news about the guard, I don't know what i'd do (but then again probably I wouldn't volunteer for the job anyway). Again i'd reiterate, appropriate people - whatever that means - might be AN answer while the underlying causes are fixed, but appropriate people doesn't mean forcing school teachers to volunteer, or Mittys from the NRA who think they'd be good but in reality would be a liability.
In God We Trust,” in a “conspicuous place.”
would inside toilet stalls count?
You’re forgetting Derrick Bird who killed 12 in Cumbria in 2010.
True but stil a very far way off Americas record.
Gun issues in the States are not going to be fixed until their political system is fixed. So long as politicians are allowed to accept many millions of pounds from lobbying groups like the NRA the issue will not be fixed.
Fix the lobbying issue first, and allow gun control to follow
For those advocating the “good guy” theory, how much formal weapons handling have you actually had?
The amount required to actually be “good” is staggering & I’m not talking about your average squaddie.
You want to put an armed teacher into a room full of unarmed students, then add the highly unstable element of a shooter with greater firepower..
Ok, let me tell you a little about how that works. You’re going to end up with a crossfire. That normally ends up with a higher number of casualties. You think you can handle the pressure of unarmed & innocent, terrified, screaming bodies running across your line of fire while the guy on the other side has no scruples about such concerns & he’s just pulling that trigger as fast as he can while all around all hell is breaking lose....& then you’ve got one chance to take a shot...one....& not kill any innocents in the process? You think that level of skill & physical control can be achieved over a few wks? The best in the World spend months & months drilling this skill set - that’s good, that’s the level of skill you need. Not some p/t John Wayne wannabe whose only experience is rounds down the range at static targets...
A couple of good guys? **** off - that’s the best way to fill more body bags.
You gun nuts don’t know what the F you’re talking about.
Yes, some very very isolated incidents over the years due to some very good gun laws
Other examples available
Studies on the effects of Australia's gun laws generally show that they have been extremely effective at stopping mass shootings, and may have been causal in reductions in suicides and armed crime. Polling shows strong support for gun legislation in Australia with around 85% of people wanting the same or greater level of restrictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
There was an armed officer there on duty. He didn't respond in the way that he should. I don't know why, maybe he just froze, maybe when faced with semi automatic fire he thought of his own family and couldn't go in. We'll find out in due course but I would be loathe to condemn him. We'd all like to think cometh the hour, cometh the man yada, yada, yada but none of us knows exactly how we would react.
What is does do is pour cold water on the ludicrous idea of arming teachers. All that is promising to do is to turn schools and classrooms into potential warzones, an arms race to the bottom where the only winners are the firearms manufacturers and gun fetishists like the NRA members and some of the saddos on here who value stroking themselves over killing machines* ahead of the lives of children.
I would add that I like shooting. Small bore target, rifle and pistol, and shotgun, clays only and without boasting I like to think I'm pretty good. I don't however think that weapons should be freely available to anyone without stringent background checks. Military grade equipment should be for the military or at the very least restricted to extremely restricted availability, i.e. fully licensed gun club where the weapons are kept.
.
.
*cars are not killing machines. They are meant for transport and generally only harm people when the human in control makes a mistake.
The NRA Facebook feed is terrifying. It is full of statements like ;Wake up, they are coming after us' as if they liberal left are going to come and rape their children and 'The Government can't keep you safe'. Their members love this stuff. The comments section is a whole new world, it is like Daily Mail on meth.
The NRA may be abhorrent but you can't deny that they are very very good at what they do.
A couple of good guys? **** off – that’s the best way to fill more body bags.
You gun nuts don’t know what the F you’re talking about.
I'm not a gun nut. I abhor the situation over there and the underlying causes to it. But I'm looking at this holistically, and that situation will not get fixed overnight if it is indeed fixable full stop, given the culture.
Put another way - set aside how they 'become' bad or how they get the gun - Does anyone disagree that a potential solution to the IMMEDIATE threat of a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; and if you do disagree then what is the solution to that IMMEDIATE threat?
Because once that is accepted then we're just reduced to arguing about what 'good' entails. Again I reiterate - that good guy has to be substantially more skilled and capable than a teacher who's been on a course or a Mitty from the NRA. They need to be firearms response team level of skill, which is a huge investment of time and money, and of course having them sitting around in schools, hopefully permanently doing 'nothing' other than act as a deterrent is probably untenable. So we're back to armed response teams who we know can't get there before much of the damage is done, so we're back to preventing the bad guys getting the guns again, so we're back where we started in that it won't happen any time soon. So what do we do in the meantime? Because just accepting that it's statistically rare, and that most guns deaths in the US aren't mass shootings and are probably suicides and 'simple' murders doesn't give much comfort.
Because just accepting that it’s statistically rare, and that most guns deaths in the US aren’t mass shootings and are probably suicides and ‘simple’ murders doesn’t give much comfort.
it’s what they do though. They don’t want to change enough to do anything about it. Because if they did want to change it, then they would.
If they’re happy to roll their dice and take a chance with the relatively low staitisticsl risk, then let them. While sympathetic with those who are losing their lives on an individual level, I’ve run out of sympathy for them on a macro level. If the will to change exists and they can’t harness that to effect that change then they can go swivel. And until they realise that school shoot-ups don’t play out like a TV show where the good guy accurately takes out multiple bad guys all with one shot each time, nothing will change.
Anyone see the interview on Newsnight with the author of "More Guns Less Crime" ( http://amzn.eu/943qXC8)
I had to turn it off - these people are so blinkered. He seemed exasperated that the interviewer was asking common sense questions. To me, whose admittedly only experience of guns is what I've seen on TV and films, things mentioned above, like cross fire, skill levels, etc. are obvious, but to them they don't even factor in their argument.
"They need to be firearms response team level of skill, which is a huge investment of time and money, and of course having them sitting around in schools, hopefully permanently doing ‘nothing’ other than act as a deterrent is probably untenable. "
& now you understand why it's a non-starter.
It's not just the initial training, it's the ongoing practice - when's the teacher going to squeeze that in? Between lessons & detentions? At the w/e between marking sessions? Before breakfast & walking the dog? Taking his/her kids to the park? The SAS et al spend a huge amount of their time training for these instances - it's their job. Leave it to them- don't give the responsibility to a Geography teacher FFS. If you knew anything about firearms training you'd realise how bad an idea this is.
America has a problem & the answer is as clear as day - but there are too many invested interests who are too intent on lining their pockets & couldn't care less about the innocent.
Armed teachers are a chronically, poorly, terribly thought out concept - particularly when the answer is staring you in the face.
Does anyone disagree that a potential solution to the IMMEDIATE threat of a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; and if you do disagree then what is the solution to that IMMEDIATE threat?
There was a good guy with a gun. He froze thereby having no effect on the situation at all. Now, imagine in a parallel universe that the same thing happened and the armed guard had gone running into the school. There are people running and screaming, gunshots and general chaos. A pupil comes running out of a classroom, the guard mistakenly thinks that he is carrying and opens fire. The student is killed. Some shots miss and ricochet. Another student is killed and one injured.
More guns is not the answer!
#edit - America is so f***** up at the moment in this respect (see the STW Facebook page for evidence) that there is no immediate solution, it's too far gone.
Ok, let me tell you a little about how that works. You’re going to end up with a crossfire. That normally ends up with a higher number of casualties.
Exactly this. Bad guy pulls gun and starts shooting.
Good Guy 1 pulls gun, starts shooting back (in amongst the screaming/running innocents caught in the middle).
Good Guy 2 arrives on scene, sees two people shooting, pulls his own gun and starts firing - he's now got a choice of 2 targets in a crowded, chaotic scene.
Good Guy 3 arrives - repeat until you've got half a dozen "good guys" all thinking they're engaging the Bad Guy, crossfire and ricochets going everywhere.
It's not even like an SAS team storming a building where they know the score, they know each other, they have the necessary intel on how many bad guys/hostages/victims there are, they have radio comms etc. This is half a dozxen random good guys all acting alone, more or less untrained in all of this.
How anyone can think this is a good idea is beyond me. It was the same argument at that movie theatre shooting "oh well if the audience had all been armed..." Utter madness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04yn5d4
Ben Wheatly who made free fire, spent a bit of time researching shoot outs, an interesting watch (and follow it up with the film) the TLDR version lots of bullets none hitting anything they were meant to except by luck or accident
So, the guard didn’t help - you’ve proved it, you can’t rely on people running in to danger to solve the problem - you need to rely on the people already there, in danger, to resolve it, with what they have available.
Highly relevant Jim Jeffries bit that is quite famous by now. (watch both parts, covers most points in this thread...!)
22 years next month since Dunblane and no mass or school shootings since.
There weren't any in the 100 years before either. I can't think why banning a particular configuration of gun has any relevance.